It is a dependent action, and it's true that as such there's an Agoran
Decision initiated on which players can vote SUPPORT or OPPOSE.
However, if the action can be done with 2 support, the result of the
decision on whether to do it is APPROVED if there are 2 or more
supports even if there are
On 9/20/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been confused by this recently. The closest thing to defining the phrase
> 'with 2 support' is in rule 2124 where With N Supporters is defined. This
> seems
> related to a Dependent Action and can be voted on (both SUPPORT and OBJECT).
>
>
Levi wrote:
I've been confused by this recently. The closest thing to defining the
phrase 'with 2 support' is in rule 2124 where With N Supporters is
defined. This seems related to a Dependent Action and can be voted on
(both SUPPORT and OBJECT).
Does this make it a dependent action? or does
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On 9/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to call for the appeal of CFJ 1741.
I vote OBJECT
Not to the proper forum, but this would be ineffective in any case
since an appeal can be brough
On 9/19/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Not to the proper forum, but this would be ineffective in any case
> since an appeal can be brought with 2 support and doesn't require
> Agoran Consent; objections are irrelevant.
>
>
Indeed, it appears 90% of the actions I take in Agora are
On 9/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I intend, with 2 support, to call for the appeal of CFJ 1741.
> >
> I vote OBJECT
Not to the proper forum, but this would be ineffective in any case
since an appeal can be brought with 2 support
On 9/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to call for the appeal of CFJ 1741.
>
I vote OBJECT
BobTHJ
On 9/18/07, Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recommend all players use email clients that render html messages
> correctly. If the appeal fails should this be legislated? The current
> fora rules do not mention emails explicitly, I assume this is
> deliberate. How about (roughly):
>
>
>
>
Quoting Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
5 out of 7 email readers were capable of rendering the message despite
the lack of the MIME-Version header. In addition, there is no evidence
that any player or watcher was unable to read the message with a
reasonable amount of effort. I therefore find th
9 matches
Mail list logo
