coppro wrote:
>> 6443 O 1 1.5 Murphy Fix judicial demotion
> FOR x 12
I have your voting limit at 5. If it's higher, then please
CoE the upcoming voting results and let me know why.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I think there's precedent that randomly high votes work fine (I suppose
> unless some critical threshold in the upper reaches makes a scam work).
> But it may be just that assessors haven't questioned it. In theory it
> may matter that a person
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 17:25 -0400, comex wrote:
>> Precedent says 1 is too high, at least for CFJs :)
>
> Hmmm... because that creates extra recordkeepor burden?
>
I think there's precedent that randomly high votes work fine (I suppose
unless some critical
On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 17:25 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:21 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, this correctly scams round loopholes in the
> > proposal's tricks; if the proposal would pass even with an AGAINST from
> > me, I have no votes AGAINST; and I have ten thousand
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:21 PM, ais523 wrote:
> As far as I can tell, this correctly scams round loopholes in the
> proposal's tricks; if the proposal would pass even with an AGAINST from
> me, I have no votes AGAINST; and I have ten thousand unconditional votes
> FOR, so I'm likely to win as a re
C-walker wrote:
>> 6447 O 0 1.0 coppro Terrible
> FOR * VL if it would cause me to win, AGAINST * VL otherwise
Just so you know, that's effectively an unconditional AGAINST vote; the
proposal was written to prevent this manner of stupid vote from functioning.
-coppro
6 matches
Mail list logo
