ehird wrote:
> On 2009-03-24, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> coppro wrote:
>>
>>> You are not a party to the (currently non-contract) Vote Market II.
>> Oh, the perennial problem with the Vote Market was that most proposals
>> aren't controversial enough for anyone to bother buying votes. This
>> might be
On 2009-03-24, Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>> You are not a party to the (currently non-contract) Vote Market II.
>
> Oh, the perennial problem with the Vote Market was that most proposals
> aren't controversial enough for anyone to bother buying votes. This
> might be improved if more pro
coppro wrote:
> You are not a party to the (currently non-contract) Vote Market II.
Oh, the perennial problem with the Vote Market was that most proposals
aren't controversial enough for anyone to bother buying votes. This
might be improved if more proposals were Ordinary; I should sit down
and
Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 6154 D 1 3.0 Goethe Third SHOULD fix
> SELL(^5)
>> 6155 O 1 1.0 comex Refactor falsity
> SELL(^10)
You are not a party to the (currently non-contract) Vote Market II.
(also, what's with the {^}?)
Warrigal wrote:
>>> 6158 D 1 3.0 Goethe Rule Change Rights
>> PORx8
>>
>>> 6159 D 0 3.0 Murphy Close it up
>> PORx8
>
> I retract these votes. I vote ENDORSE Murphyx8, ENDORSE ais523x8 on
> both these decisions.
>
> --Warrigal, who hopes the Assessor knows how to assess
ehird wrote:
>> 6155 O 1 1.0 comex        Refactor falsity
> FOR
These and other votes on ordinary proposals still fail due to Rests
zeroing your voting limit.
coppro wrote:
> I CFJ {Warrigal has, at the time of this message, voted on proposal
> 6164}, then retract any CFJs initiated by me with the same text, if any.
Including the one you just initiated?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I CFJ {Warrigal has, at the time of this message, voted on proposal
> 6164}, then retract any CFJs initiated by me with the same text, if any.
I'm going to say that you successfully called and then retracted a CFJ.
Sgeo wrote:
> Why does it matter if someone successfully or unsuccessfully says "TTttPF"?
It changes whether or not quotations are interpreted as part of the text
of the message, and thus actions with them should be considered valid.
These have to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis, but TTttPF
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Sean Hunt wrote:
I CFJ {Warrigal has, at the time of this message, voted on proposal 6164}.
>>> I FAIL.
>>
>> That's probably not sufficiently clear to initiate a CFJ
Wooble wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> I CFJ {Warrigal has, at the time of this message, voted on proposal 6164}.
>> I FAIL.
>
> That's probably not sufficiently clear to initiate a CFJ.
In context, I consider "I FAIL." a reasonable synonym for
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I CFJ {Warrigal has, at the time of this message, voted on proposal 6164}.
>
> I FAIL.
That's probably not sufficiently clear to initiate a CFJ.
Warrigal wrote:
> Voto:
>
>> 6152 D 1 3.0 Pavitra H.
> CONTRAx8
>
>> 6153 D 1 2.0 coppro Patch Bug 6121
> PORx8
>
>> 6154 D 1 3.0 Goethe Third SHOULD fix
> CONTRAx8; no importa la definición en realidad
>
>> 6155 O 1 1.0 comex Refactor falsity
ehird wrote:
> I strongly recommend H. Assessor consider this invalid lest we get
> upside down Ithkuil ballots.
I consider this valid because I recognize the language, and especially
because all three key words are cognates of their English equivalents
(or, in the case of CONTRA, a rough synonym
I strongly recommend H. Assessor consider this invalid lest we get
upside down Ithkuil ballots.
On 2009-03-19, Warrigal wrote:
> Voto:
>
>> 6152 D 1 3.0 Pavitra H.
> CONTRAx8
>
>> 6153 D 1 2.0 coppro Patch Bug 6121
> PORx8
>
>> 6154 D 1 3.0 Goethe Third SHOUL
2009/3/18 Geoffrey Spear :
> I see no reason to leave an office, especially one with a weekly duty,
> vacant for any longer than necessary. In fact, I'm not sure there's a
> good reason not to require the IADoP to nominate as soon as possible
> for all vacant offices rather than just high-priority
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> As I understand it, it still will be. The paragraph "The Anarchist's
> weekly duties include the performance of the
> following tasks(...)" will remain, so the only things actually
> changing are that it won't have to be replaced as qu
2009/3/18 Kerim Aydin :
>
>> 6164 O 1 1.0 Yally Low-priority Anarchism
> 8xAGAINST. I like my anarchy weekly.
>
> -Goethe
As I understand it, it still will be. The paragraph "The Anarchist's
weekly duties include the performance of the
following tasks(...)" will remain, so the
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> 6155 O 1 1.0 comex Refactor falsity
>> 8xAGAINST. Isn't this duplicated in "misleading"? (Open to voting FOR
>> if I'm missing something).
>
> This would criminalize ev
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 6155 O 1 1.0 comex Refactor falsity
> 8xAGAINST. Isn't this duplicated in "misleading"? (Open to voting FOR
> if I'm missing something).
This would criminalize even accidentally incorrect information if
published a
>> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>>
>> Proposal 6164 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=1) by Yally
>> Low-priority Anarchism
>>
>> Amend the first paragraph of rule 2216 (The Repeal-o-Matic) to read:
>> {
>> The Anarchist is a low-priority office; its holder is re
21 matches
Mail list logo
