>> 6256 Inactivity is unpopular D 2.0 1 coppro
> AGAINST (favors inactives for promotions as well as demotions)
It does in theory allow me to promote an inactive multiple times, but
that would require me to mess up by making an illegal flip and someone
to demote the inactive
> 6238 Judicial Sanctions O 1.7 2 coppro
AGAINST (more complexity for near-trivial penalty, there are often
only a few days between rotations)
> 6239 Speak softly and carry a big stamp D 2.0 1 Murphy
FOR
> 6240 The Power of Capitalization, and I mean... D
Wooble wrote:
>> 6238 Judicial Sanctions O 1.7 2 coppro
> AGAINST * 5
Your caste was reduced to 3 before the voting period started.
Arnold Bros (est. 1905) wrote:
> All of the following votes are cast A(g64,g64) times.
Show-off.
Quazie wrote:
> 6249 Committees 2.0 D 3.0 2 Wooble
> FOR
>
> 6251 Decriminalize restricted actions D 3.0 1 Murphy
> AGAINST
Please include something like "6250: no vote" in cases like this, it
makes things marginally easier when recording votes.
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> 6256 Inactivity is unpopularD 2.0 1 coppro
> AGAINST [inactives are preferred for promotions too?]
No, it simply allows me to demote inactives multiple times during a cycle.
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> 6246 Fix Office InterestO 1.0 1 Wooble
> CoE: Wooble submitted this, not coppro who's listed as the author later. FOR
Hrm... this is indeed the case. I appear to have accidentally created a
new propo
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> 6240 The Power of Capitalization, and I mean... D 3.0 1 Quazie
> AGAINST - Don't force the Rulekeepor to do this emself; these could all
> be Cleanliness changes. I also don't want any unintended effects.
For reference: (and I'm not sure w
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> 6254 Mitigate point scams O 1.0 1 root
> AGAINST x 2 - there's no requirement this would have to be used for
It's not intended for scams only.
-root
9 matches
Mail list logo
