On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> You can only contest a CoE by calling a CFJ on the matter, specifying
> which report you're contesting and specifically stating you're
> contesting it. You didn't provide the text of the CFJ, so that fails.
O.o I mixed up CoE and NoV.
--
Tara
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 18:54 -0700, Taral wrote:
> I contest these CoEs.
You can only contest a CoE by calling a CFJ on the matter, specifying
which report you're contesting and specifically stating you're
contesting it. You didn't provide the text of the CFJ, so that fails.
--
ais523
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Taral wrote:
> I contest these CoEs.
You can't, but the CoEs don't have any legal force as a distribution
of proposals is not self-ratifying.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> One additional point of order - Proposal N is not generally the name of
>> an entity; for maximum clarity, Distributed Proposal N should be used.
>
> How do you figure? (There was a CFJ on this matter, but when I
> tracked it down - 1358 - it t
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 00:30 -0400, Warrigal wrote:
> The problem with having multiple ways to change the rules generally is
> that every one has to fail simultaneously for "Agora Is A Nomic" to
> kick in. This is fine if every general rule change method is actually
> a reasonable way to change the
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, entitled {Instant Adoption}, AI 3, II
> 1, coauthored by Goethe:
> {{{
> Create a new power-3 rule:
> {{
> A player may cause instant adoption of a proposal that has not
> yet been voted on with A*P/(A+1)
coppro wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> coppro wrote:
>>
>>> ID Number: 6190
>>> Title: Deputised duties go away
>>> Author: Murphy
>>> Adoption Index: 3.0 (Democratic)
>>> Interest Index: 0
>> CoE: I did not request II=0.
> Admitted. Since this means the Agoran Decision was never intiated, I CoE
> m
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> If there are two active players, then two votes would be required to
> pass a proposal. So if a proposal then had adoption index of 3, it would
> be : 3*2/(3+1) = 6/4 = 1. And also, what about ordinary decisions?
Your math is correct; that would require both players to want
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 21:13 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> The formula is designed to require a sufficient number of players to
>> pass the proposal with everyone else voting AGAINST. Remember that the
>> initiator of the action cannot support; therefore with even three active
>> pl
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> > I vote as follows:
> >
> > 6187: AGAINST [the formula is broken for several instances, including
> > especially if the number of active players is very low)
> > 6188: PRESENT
> > 6189: FOR
> > 6190: FOR
> >
> > -Yally
>
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 21:13 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> The formula is designed to require a sufficient number of players to
> pass the proposal with everyone else voting AGAINST. Remember that the
> initiator of the action cannot support; therefore with even three active
> players, a proposal with a
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>
> 6187: AGAINST [the formula is broken for several instances, including
> especially if the number of active players is very low)
> 6188: PRESENT
> 6189: FOR
> 6190: FOR
>
> -Yally
>
The formula is designed to require a sufficient number of players to
ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 19:35 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Streamlined how?
>>
>> I'll work on replacing the data-scraping logic with the next
>> distribution. At least this was a small batch. (But why was
>> Tiger's proposal left in the pool?)
>
> Because nobody knows what the voti
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 19:35 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Streamlined how?
>
> I'll work on replacing the data-scraping logic with the next
> distribution. At least this was a small batch. (But why was
> Tiger's proposal left in the pool?)
Because nobody knows what the voting limits are at the mome
ehird wrote:
> On 2009-04-02, Taral wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Yes, I do know it was supposed to go to official. It looks my address
>>> for Agora Official is set to agora-business for some reason (see the To:
>>> line)
>> Any chance we can restore the old sum
On 2009-04-02, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Yes, I do know it was supposed to go to official. It looks my address
>> for Agora Official is set to agora-business for some reason (see the To:
>> line)
>
> Any chance we can restore the old summary at the top?
>
Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Yes, I do know it was supposed to go to official. It looks my address
>> for Agora Official is set to agora-business for some reason (see the To:
>> line)
>
> Any chance we can restore the old summary at the top?
>
Yes, I've alre
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Yes, I do know it was supposed to go to official. It looks my address
> for Agora Official is set to agora-business for some reason (see the To:
> line)
Any chance we can restore the old summary at the top?
--
Taral
"Please let me know if ther
Sean Hunt wrote:
>
Yes, I do know it was supposed to go to official. It looks my address
for Agora Official is set to agora-business for some reason (see the To:
line)
19 matches
Mail list logo
