On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Keba wrote:
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a
> decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven
> days, except a Rule with a power of 3 or higher explicitly
> states so.
s/except/unless
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Keba wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> > > How about:
> > >
> > > Making a decision's voting period shorter than seven days is
> > > secured if the decision has at least two options.
> >
> > Buggy; "secured" only works against changes, specifically, so it would
> > allow
ais523 wrote:
> > How about:
> >
> > Making a decision's voting period shorter than seven days is
> > secured if the decision has at least two options.
>
> Buggy; "secured" only works against changes, specifically, so it would
> allow a decision to be created with a short voting perio
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 11:39 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> G.
>
> > Amend R107 by replacing:
> > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
> >voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be
> >shorter than seven days.
> > with:
> >The vo
G.
> Amend R107 by replacing:
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
>voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be
>shorter than seven days.
> with:
>The voting period for a decision with at least two options is
>sec
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Amend R107 by replacing:
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
> voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be
> shorter than seven days.
> with:
> The voting period for a deci
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
>> To avoid "spam scams", a proposal CANNOT be created except in a
>> message with exactly one Subject header, which must contain with
>> the exact text "[Proposal]" with no more than ten cha
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Keba wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Nice. I thought about a "with N support" (or without N objetions)
> phrase, but this way is much better. If there is anyone who wants to pay
> a fee to make an Urgent Proposal undistributable. Maybe we should say
> that undistribute a Urgent
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Here we go, simple proto, Urgency, AI-3:
>
>
> Amend R107 by replacing:
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
>voting period for a decision with at least two options can
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> To avoid "spam scams", a proposal CANNOT be created except in a
> message with exactly one Subject header, which must contain with
> the exact text "[Proposal]" with no more than ten characters
> preceding it.
Regardless of the merits o
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Keba wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > More from the ancient archives. I think it should come back, it scarcely
> > needs modification to do so (maybe a cost jiggle, and an MMI edit):
>
>
> Hm, that sounds nice, but need to be rewritten. "Class 1 Infraction"
> should be Cla
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> More from the ancient archives. I think it should come back, it scarcely
> needs modification to do so (maybe a cost jiggle, and an MMI edit):
>
> Rule 1724/8 (Power=1)
> Urgent Proposals
>
>A Proposal is Urgent if all the following conditions are met:
>
>
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Keba wrote:
> comex wrote:
> > [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently
> > required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative
> > effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't
> > all that high (if it were, this wo
comex wrote:
> [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently
> required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative
> effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't
> all that high (if it were, this would be too chaotic), I think that
> BlogNomic-
comex wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> comex wrote:
>>
>>> [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently
>>> required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative
>>> effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't
>>>
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
>> [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently
>> required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative
>> effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't
>> all that high, I thin
comex wrote:
> [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently
> required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative
> effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't
> all that high, I think that BlogNomic-style immediate distribution is
> not onl
17 matches
Mail list logo
