On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > 7958* G. 2.0 Succession Planning G. OP [1]
>
> FOR. I like the idea, but I’m not convinced of the implementation: in
> particular, is an appointed successor an interim, or a non-interim
> holder of an office? I’m voti
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Really hope succession planning does not pass. We just established a really
> snazzy system for making new elections: it would be a shame to minimize
> elections at this time. We should be encouraging them instead.
The successor comes on as an Interim holde
Really hope succession planning does not pass. We just established a really
snazzy system for making new elections: it would be a shame to minimize
elections at this time. We should be encouraging them instead.
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Telnaior wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>
>
> On 2017-1
Yep, looks good.
On 11/5/2017 7:46 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
This look good?
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 6
Looks good to me.
On 11/05/2017 07:46 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> This look good?
>
> -Aris
>
> ---
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor,
This look good?
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 6.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
also a
I think I got it.
On 11/05/2017 06:40 PM, ATMunn wrote:
> I just realized something...
> On October 30, I made a proposal to fix my Medals of Honour proposal.
> I was going to CoE this because it's not here but...
> I tried to find the message, and found it, but apparently something
> happened AND
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> 7960* V.J. Rada 2.0 Community Chest Repeal II V.J. Rada 2 sh.
> >PRESENT. Haven't been following why this is or isn't a good idea on its
> >own?
>
> Well the rule currently literally does not work. Also, I'm the only person
> who has used it
>> 7960* V.J. Rada 2.0 Community Chest Repeal IIV.J. Rada 2 sh.
>PRESENT. Haven't been following why this is or isn't a good idea on its
>own?
Well the rule currently literally does not work. Also, I'm the only person
who has used it in its history, and it has been replaced by Basic
Ech. Reply-to's are dumb.
On 11/5/2017 3:03 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
If I do not win the Rulekeepor election this week, this position would
be the next one I'd go for. I've got that 2003 Land rules thing I'm
working on, and I'm sure Agoran History is quite interesting.
On 11/5/2017 2:41 PM, K
If someone wants to keep the office, I will happily vote against.
On 11/05/2017 04:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
>>> 7961* G. 1.0 Fear lessG. 1 AP
>> AGAINST
> If this office is kept, I'll happily step aside for a
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > 7961* G. 1.0 Fear lessG. 1 AP
> AGAINST
If this office is kept, I'll happily step aside for a player who
wants it. At first I thought it was good for a long-time player
(who might have some memory of good st
12 matches
Mail list logo
