On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:25, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> This version:
>>> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
>>>
>>> has Section 1
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the problem is section 13 doesn't specify "cast a single vote"
> it specifies "voting" in general. Therefore a section 13 ticket
> action of (endorse or Y) is in fact a subclass of a section 11
> specification to vote in
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Did I miss an amendement?
>>
>> This version:
>> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
>>
>> has Section 11 votes so that a Se
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Okay then, here's my question. A section 13 is still a (conditional)
> offer to vote in a certain way on an agoran decision (Endorse or
> otherwise). As such, don't section 13 tickets still fall under the
> section 11's default requirement t
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> BobTHJ voted "SELL (5VP - AGAINST) x 5". This amounted to 5 votes of
>> "SELL (5VP - AGAINST)", which resulted in 5 sets of conditional votes,
>> each set resolving to (endorse fille
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did I miss an amendement?
>
> This version:
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
>
> has Section 11 votes so that a Sell Ticket is a ticket to vote up to one's
> voting
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> This version:
>> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
>>
>> has Section 11 votes so that a Sell Ticket is a ticket to vote up to one's
>> voting power
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This version:
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html
>
> has Section 11 votes so that a Sell Ticket is a ticket to vote up to one's
> voting power; under that section more than one ticke
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Where are you finding this? The vote I find is:
>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "SELL(5VP) x5"
>>
>> There's certainly no Against. Without the AGAINST (versus for example a
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 13:59 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (Note, however, that it is not certain that the Assessor
> > understood it correctly; Murphy recently admitted to treating unfilled
> > tickets as no-vote rather than PR
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Note, however, that it is not certain that the Assessor
> understood it correctly; Murphy recently admitted to treating unfilled
> tickets as no-vote rather than PRESENT.)
I don't believe there's any reason from a reading of the
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where are you finding this? The vote I find is:
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "SELL(5VP) x5"
>
> There's certainly no Against. Without the AGAINST (versus for example a
> 5xAGAINST) missing it's unclear to me whether t
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > BobTHJ voted "SELL (5VP - AGAINST) x 5". This amounted to 5 votes of
> > "SELL (5VP - AGAINST)", which resulted in 5 sets of conditional votes,
> > each set resolving to (endorse filler x 5 / AGAINST x
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> BobTHJ voted "SELL (5VP - AGAINST) x 5". This amounted to 5 votes of
> "SELL (5VP - AGAINST)", which resulted in 5 sets of conditional votes,
> each set resolving to (endorse filler x 5 / AGAINST x 1); and 5
> corresponding sell tickets.
Where are you findi
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:09 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> You know, it seems to me that your interpretation of it should more
>>> plausibly be written "SELL (5VP -
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal CFJ 2203. The judgement looked
>> reasonable at the time, but various doubts have come up since which I
>> think need looking at. Rule 754 is probably th
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> You know, it seems to me that your interpretation of it should more
>> plausibly be written "SELL (5VP - AGAINST x 3)".
> Well, does that allow the buying of 1 vote or 3? That
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal CFJ 2203. The judgement looked
> reasonable at the time, but various doubts have come up since which I
> think need looking at. Rule 754 is probably the best argument as to what
> is allowed, be
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:02 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> You know, it seems to me that your interpretation of it should more
> plausibly be written "SELL (5VP - AGAINST x 3)".
Well, does that allow the buying of 1 vote or 3? That isn't at all clear
from that. A conditional vote that changes number acc
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Wooble that SELL (5VP - AGAINST) probably works, due to it
> being an abbreviation whose expansion is well-known and repeatedly
> published. (Note, however, that it is not certain that the Assessor
> understood it cor
20 matches
Mail list logo
