Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>Also, proposal titles are (AFAICT) at the promotor's discretion.
Yes, they're completely unofficial at present.
>With all the action lately, I felt it may be useful to not distribute
>proposals with identical titles, as someone just might want to refer
>to a title
On Apr 30, 2007, at 1:18 PM, Taral wrote:
On 4/29/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proposal: Protection Racket
To tell apart the two proposals, this proposal has been entered as
Protection Racket (2).
What, did the "duplicate proposal" rule get repealed too?
I checked. It
Taral wrote:
>What, did the "duplicate proposal" rule get repealed too?
Amended away in 2005. The rule itself (R1483) was then repealed in 2006,
its role taken over by R106.
-zefram
On 4/29/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proposal: Protection Racket
To tell apart the two proposals, this proposal has been entered as
Protection Racket (2).
What, did the "duplicate proposal" rule get repealed too?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
On Apr 29, 2007, at 7:59 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
I remove "Proposal Racket" from the pool.
As Zefram noted, there is no such proposal in the pool.
Proposal: Protection Racket
To tell apart the two proposals, this proposal has been entered as
Protection Racket (2).
-
Benjamin Schultz
OscarMeyr wrote:
On Apr 29, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Zefram wrote:
Oh, this seems a good time to point out: the would-be Oligarchs could
have avoided the whole VC race by simply distributing the Oligarch
proposal last week, so that it would be contested under that week's
unchangeable VLOPs. We certa
Zefram wrote:
Eep, here's another message with datestamps crossing midnight. (I just
CFJed about this concerning Quazie's VC spending.) Headers:
I think the "normal domain of technical control" argument should
continue to hold.
I remove "Proposal Racket" from the pool.
It was titled "Pro
On Apr 29, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Zefram wrote:
Oh, this seems a good time to point out: the would-be Oligarchs could
have avoided the whole VC race by simply distributing the Oligarch
proposal last week, so that it would be contested under that week's
unchangeable VLOPs. We certainly couldn't have
Oh, this seems a good time to point out: the would-be Oligarchs could
have avoided the whole VC race by simply distributing the Oligarch
proposal last week, so that it would be contested under that week's
unchangeable VLOPs. We certainly couldn't have voted it down under
those circumstances. What
Eep, here's another message with datestamps crossing midnight. (I just
CFJed about this concerning Quazie's VC spending.) Headers:
>Received: from yzma.clarkk.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by yzma.clarkk.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
> id C2BBC8067E; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:00:03 -0500 (CDT)
Ed Murphy wrote:
>If it's not a proposal any more, then R106 falls silent, yes?
I think not. Proposal adoption is chained from the Agoran decision,
not from proposalhood.
>to get some entertaining CFJs out of this one.
Glad to hear you intend to allow CFJs despite your Oligarchic powers.
-zefr
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
An Oligarch may refuse a proposal by announcement. A refused
proposal ceases to be a proposal.
Nice try, but I don't think this will work at Power=1. Rule 106
at Power=3 calls for a proposal to be adopted if the vote on it is
favourable, which I thin
Ed Murphy wrote:
> An Oligarch may refuse a proposal by announcement. A refused
> proposal ceases to be a proposal.
Nice try, but I don't think this will work at Power=1. Rule 106
at Power=3 calls for a proposal to be adopted if the vote on it is
favourable, which I think your "ceases
13 matches
Mail list logo
