More importantly: It'll be two weeks until PLP math changes, which gives
us time to revert it if we'd like. The fix to ballots, however, is an
*critical* concern. I'd rather vote for this in its current form ASAP
and debate PLP later.
On 05/18/17 19:49, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 0
On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 05:42 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> I would still oppose this because it only encourages an increase in
> the list price and makes it much harder for it to decrease.
This is mathematically equivalent to the current formula, unless I've
missed something. (Tha
I would still oppose this because it only encourages an increase in
the list price and makes it much harder for it to decrease.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 17:28 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I submit the followin
On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 21:00 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Did the broken extend the voting period issue in from CFJ 3470 ever
> get fixed?
Looking at the ruleset, perhaps not? However, the CFJ judgement was
fairly perfunctory (if I'd been paying more attention, I'd at least
have suggested that the ju
On Thu, 18 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 04:06 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> > The whole issue with quorum actually makes the timing irrelevant. You
> > could still have blocked the scam even after the "end of the voting
> > period"; the proposal was clearly inquorate at the sc
I'd be happy to write a more formal argument if a CFJ is called, but I
pretty much agree with ais523 on this. I've been aware of the resolution
re-arrangement for a while. It's a quite powerful ability considering
everything it can do. Also note that that resolution was titled "Attempt
1" not becau
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 19:57 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Alex Smith > > wrote:
>> >
>> > I pend that proposal, using the mechanism in the rule "Reward and
>> > Delay".
>>
>> I can't distribute these until you c
On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 04:06 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> The whole issue with quorum actually makes the timing irrelevant. You
> could still have blocked the scam even after the "end of the voting
> period"; the proposal was clearly inquorate at the scheduled end of the
> voting period, which causes
On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 19:57 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Alex Smith > wrote:
> >
> > I pend that proposal, using the mechanism in the rule "Reward and
> > Delay".
>
> I can't distribute these until you convince a judge that your
> non-dictatorship exists. The te
> On May 17, 2017, at 10:57 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>
>> I pend that proposal, using the mechanism in the rule "Reward and
>> Delay".
>
> I can't distribute these until you convince a judge that your
> non-dictatorship exists. The te
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> I pend that proposal, using the mechanism in the rule "Reward and
> Delay".
I can't distribute these until you convince a judge that your
non-dictatorship exists. The technical evidence alone is convoluted,
and that's ignoring quorum. I don't
I concur with o regarding both the list price issue and the fact that
your payment does not affect the list price.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> On May 15, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>
>> I transfer 10 Shinies to Agor
On May 16, 2017 23:33, "Alex Smith" wrote:
As such, I went for the simpler option (especially as IIRC there was a
proposal to simplify the pending price system floating around already,
and I didn't want to accidentally reverse it). If you strongly feel
that allowing a drift down is likely to make
On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 22:45 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On May 15, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Alex Smith
> > wrote:
> >
> > I transfer 10 Shinies to Agora. (The victory from this scam seems like
> > enough of a reward without trying to cheat on pending costs at the same
> > time.)
>
> I believe this
> On May 15, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> I transfer 10 Shinies to Agora. (The victory from this scam seems like
> enough of a reward without trying to cheat on pending costs at the same
> time.)
I believe this transfer should not affect the pending list price, but I’m not
complete
Thank you, oh powerful and benevolent dictator.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I transfer 10 Shinies to Agora. (The victory from this scam seems like
> enough of a reward without trying to cheat on pending costs at the same
> time.)
>
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
