On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:28 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But there's no reason R1728 shouldn't support
> with-support-without-objection generally. (Goethe, was it intended
> to?)
>
> Proposal: Allow multiple methods (AI=2)
> Amend Rule 1728 by replacing "method" in item b) with "methods
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I publish official report X, which if ratified would make me dictator.
>> I intend to (ratify X without objection), with support.
>> I cause Player B, on whose behalf I can act, to support
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't
>> looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method
>> schemata, period, and if the method doesn
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 11:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't
> > looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method
> > schemata, period, and if the method doesn't match, then R17
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't
> looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method
> schemata, period, and if the method doesn't match, then R1728 doesn't
> apply to it. Since R1728 is the only rule that
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The
>> paragraph does say "at least one of the following methods", but I
>> think that just means that the rules c
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The
> paragraph does say "at least one of the following methods", but I
> think that just means that the rules can define multiple methods for
> performing the same dependent action, not that
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The
> paragraph does say "at least one of the following methods", but I
> think that just means that the rules can define multiple methods for
> performing the
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> 5798 D 1 3.0 Goethe Toughen Ratifiation
>> AGAINST. "Without objection and with support" is not a defined method
>> of dependent actions.
>
> 'Without objection' is d
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5799 D 1 2.0 comex Fix Rule 1789
>> AGAINST. Didn't we already adopt this?
>
> Its voting period was extended due to lack of quorum. I vote F
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> 5798 D 1 3.0 Goethe Toughen Ratifiation
> AGAINST. "Without objection and with support" is not a defined method
> of dependent actions.
'Without objection' is defined.
'with support' is defined.
'and' is defined.
So why doesn't this work? (n
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 23:35, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> BobTHJ wrote:
>>> I vote LLAMA(SELL(2VP - PRESENT)) on the above proposals.
>> Both LLAMA() and SELL() implicitly define a conditional vote. On the
>> democratic proposals, one of these is invalid, but it's un
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure what is so difficult hereit seems pretty easy to
> resolve this to me. A Sell Ticket to cast a LLAMA conditional vote?
I wouldn't buy that.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any f
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 13:26, The PerlNomic Partnership
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
>> 5794 O 1 1.0 Murphy Return of the Repeal-o-Matic
>> 5795 O 1 1.0 Murphy Stop letting the Mad Scientist double-dip
>> 5796 O 1
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:51, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 13:26, The PerlNomic Partnership
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
>>> 5794 O 1 1.0 Murphy
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 13:26, The PerlNomic Partnership
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
>> 5794 O 1 1.0 Murphy Return of the Repeal-o-Matic
>> 5795 O 1 1.0 Murphy
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5797 D 1 2.0 Taral Office with care
> FOR, even though I think it's a no-op
Not a no-op. Second-class players now must consent regardless of when
they were nominated.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let
On 19/10/2008, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't know how to vote? Don't waste your voice with PRESENT; vote LLAMA!
>
No.
> I vote as follows:
>
>> 5794 O 1 1.0 Murphy Return of the Repeal-o-Matic
> LLAMA (FOR)
>
>> 5795 O 1 1.0 Murphy Stop letting the Mad Scient
18 matches
Mail list logo
