root wrote:
> Does it seem odd to anybody else that the net effect of denouncing
> another player's vote on a democratic proposal is to damage that
> proposal's VI, regardless of which way the denounced player actually
> voted on it?
I can't answer that yet, because I haven't figured out the moti
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Are you also treating it as retracting ehird's unquoted votes?
>
> No. I also didn't feel particularly compelled to point that out.
>
> I retract my votes FOR proposals 5556, 5558, and 5564, and I vote
> PRESENT on each of th
root wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Elliott Hird
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also vote 4x(denounce Wooble) on every proposal.
ehird
>>> Wait, no.
>>>
>>> I vote 4x(denounce root) on every pr
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I also vote 4x(denounce Wooble) on every proposal.
>>>
>>> ehird
>>>
>>
>> Wait, no.
>>
>> I vote 4x(denounce root) on every proposal.
>
> Ineffecti
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I also vote 4x(denounce Wooble) on every proposal.
>>
>> ehird
>>
>
> Wait, no.
>
> I vote 4x(denounce root) on every proposal.
Ineffective, unless you also retract your earlier votes.
-root
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5564 D0 2rootRepeal Partnerships
>> AGAINST
>
> If I may ask, why do you support retaining a construct that is only
> useful for runni
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5564 D0 2rootRepeal Partnerships
>> AGAINST
>
> If I may ask, why do you support retaining a construct that is only
> useful for runni
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AGAINST (I still think partnerships have viable uses (such as the Bank
> of Agora). I would however support restricting the ability to create
> large quantities of partnerships in a short period of time)
The Bank of Agora is
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5564 D0 2rootRepeal Partnerships
> AGAINST
If I may ask, why do you support retaining a construct that is only
useful for running scams?
-root
9 matches
Mail list logo
