Given the amount of slang crap going around, you might want to fix your AGAINT
Gaelan
> On Feb 10, 2019, at 9:35 AM, Edward Murphy wrote:
>
> I vote as follows:
>
> 8152 FOR
> 8153 FOR (inadvertent mistakes can be papered over by auto-ratification)
> 8154 AGAINT
> 8155 PRESENT
> 8156 FOR
> 815
Yeah, that's the one. CB: you get yourself a freebie since someone else dug
it up for you.
天火狐
On 10 September 2017 at 20:12, VJ Rada wrote:
> I cause 天火狐 using eir latest agency which I believe is 狐票店 but I make
> no promises, to vote in the ADoP and PM elections in this way ""I
> endorse the
I'm interpreting this as a conditional vote on 7849-7851, meaning it's a
Present on 7849. If this had been written as "In all agoran decisions,
currently up for vote, written by ais523:" then there'd be no vote on 7849.
(I'm clarifying my decisions because I'm expecting CoEs all over.)
On 05/09/
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Jonathan Rouillard
wrote:
> I vote PRESENT on every proposal I haven't voted on yet, but CAN vote on.
I believe that's all proposals ever submitted that you haven't voted on. HTH!
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I vote ENDORSE G. in all Agoran Decisions currently in their voting periods
>> (yes, even the non-proposal ones).
>
> You might need to retract a previous vote before I buy that last bit ;).
Well, I vo
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I vote ENDORSE G. in all Agoran Decisions currently in their voting periods
> (yes, even the non-proposal ones).
You might need to retract a previous vote before I buy that last bit ;).
On Sun, 14 Apr 2013, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > The most someone can get is just under 3xbase, I'm not sure this really
> > that unfair compared to a lot of past systems? Or am I missing
> > something. -G.
>
> Oops, I forgot that the default limit is
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The most someone can get is just under 3xbase, I'm not sure this really
> that unfair compared to a lot of past systems? Or am I missing
> something. -G.
Oops, I forgot that the default limit is now 4...
In general I think the limit should
On Sun, 14 Apr 2013, omd wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> 7386 2.0 Ordinary scshunt Eraser
> > FOR. Sorry Bayes, the small positive you contribute isn't worth the
> > large negatives brought by the rest of the golems.
>
> For the record, just the other
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 7386 2.0 Ordinary scshunt Eraser
> FOR. Sorry Bayes, the small positive you contribute isn't worth the
> large negatives brought by the rest of the golems.
For the record, just the other day I was planning to make a new Bayes
with a
G. wrote:
[I think I'm just outside the voting period unless there's been
apathy. Nonetheless].
You are, and there hasn't been.
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I vote FOR all decisions to adopt proposals currently in their voting
> >> periods.
> >
> > I retract my previous votes on all decisions with ongoing voting p
comex wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> To remove ambiguity, I vote FOR each Agoran Decision for which I have not
>> cast a vote.
>
> Me too.
For 6682-85, I already had votes recorded for both of you:
Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:17:39 -0600 (yoyo) coppro F A A A
Sun, 21
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 11:20 AM, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> To remove ambiguity, I vote FOR each Agoran Decision for which I have not
>> cast a vote.
>
> Me too.
>
What's going on?
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 17:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > The bug is in rule 754, which doesn't define
> > "announcement" anywhere in the published versions of the FLR or SLR for
> > months.
>
> Rule 478, last paragraph.
Nope, it defines action by announcement in terms of announc
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, comex wrote:
> Unfortunately, I'm not sure that I can unilaterally avoid this sort of
> error in the future. If someone else can make that guarantee, let
> them be Rulekeepor; otherwise, Goethe, there is always the chance of
> an accidental, hard-to-catch difference between
ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 14:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Also, perhaps we should allow the Assessor to end a voting period early
>>> if there is a certain amount of positive votes (say, VI twice the AI and
>>> at least half
ais523 wrote:
> The bug is in rule 754, which doesn't define
> "announcement" anywhere in the published versions of the FLR or SLR for
> months.
Rule 478, last paragraph.
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 11:31 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> The bug is in rule 754, which doesn't define
>>> "announcement" anywhere in the published versions of the FLR or SLR for
>>> months.
>>
>> Actually, we've
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> soon as sufficient support is garnered. This takes precedence over rule
> 1728, section b).
That section only applies for actions to be performed without objections.
> When a proposal is instantly adopted, it is removed from the Proposal
> Pool
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 14:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Also, perhaps we should allow the Assessor to end a voting period early
>>> if there is a certain amount of positive votes (say, VI twice the AI and
>>> at least ha
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 14:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > Also, perhaps we should allow the Assessor to end a voting period early
> > if there is a certain amount of positive votes (say, VI twice the AI and
> > at least half of all active play
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Also, perhaps we should allow the Assessor to end a voting period early
> if there is a certain amount of positive votes (say, VI twice the AI and
> at least half of all active players voting).
Tweaks? (Allow arbitrary changes to the gamestate w
Sean Hunt wrote:
> I admit that I knew of this too.
>
> I retract any votes I submitted for proposal 6166 and vote AGAINST it.
TtttPF.
Also, perhaps we should allow the Assessor to end a voting period early
if there is a certain amount of positive votes (say, VI twice the AI and
at least half of
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 09:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I vote FOR Proposal 6165 and AGAINST proposal 6166 (not because of lack of
>> trust of comex-as-rulekeepor, but because I never thought ruleset
>> ratification
>> was a good idea to begin with...ratify everything else bu
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 11:31 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > The bug is in rule 754, which doesn't define
> > "announcement" anywhere in the published versions of the FLR or SLR for
> > months.
>
> Actually, we've got a judicial precedent (I'll look up the nu
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> The bug is in rule 754, which doesn't define
> "announcement" anywhere in the published versions of the FLR or SLR for
> months.
Actually, we've got a judicial precedent (I'll look up the number later
unless someone else does) that a common-language defin
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> B's trouble is that massive gamestate recalculation is kind-of common
> there, and hard resets aren't nearly common enough. Recently, we
> actually discovered that nothing at all had happened since the last hard
> reset (due to various bugs), and we hard-re
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 10:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I understand the tradeoff, I just prefer to ratify change events (e.g.
> proposals) rather than the state for the ruleset in particular. Unlike
> those who like hard-resets every time there's uncertainty (B? Or at
> least my impression of B)
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 09:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I vote FOR Proposal 6165 and AGAINST proposal 6166 (not because of lack of
>> trust of comex-as-rulekeepor, but because I never thought ruleset
>> ratification
>> was a good idea to begin with...rati
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 09:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I vote FOR Proposal 6165 and AGAINST proposal 6166 (not because of lack of
> trust of comex-as-rulekeepor, but because I never thought ruleset
> ratification
> was a good idea to begin with...ratify everything else but let the rules be
> co
coppro wrote:
> 6147: FOR
The DB says you previously voted AGAINST this, thus this vote is
ineffective for being over your voting limit.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> One of the main ways equity works is by allowing direct holdings adjustments
>> of contract-governed assets. Equity is only power 1.7. -Goethe
>
> What in R2169 authorizes that? Th
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5823 D 1 2.0 rootSecure contract adjustments
>> AGAINST. It breaks Equity.
> In that case I retract my votes and vote FOR.
You voted FOR the first time, so this is effectively a no-op.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5823 D 1 2.0 rootSecure contract adjustments
>>> AGAINST. It breaks Equity.
>
> One of t
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5823 D 1 2.0 rootSecure contract adjustments
>> AGAINST. It breaks Equity.
One of the main ways equity works is by allowing direct holdings adjustments
of contract-
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 5823 D 1 2.0 rootSecure contract adjustments
> AGAINST. It breaks Equity.
How so?
-root
On Oct 13, 2008, at 9:20 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 13 Oct 2008, at 14:15, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
5765 O 1 1.0 Wooble
1 x FOR, 1 x AGAINST
Well, it's readable now. :P (I'm sure your mailer has a "reply"
button, though,
that'd also handle quoting for you...)
My rea
On 13 Oct 2008, at 14:15, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
5765 O 1 1.0 Wooble
1 x FOR, 1 x AGAINST
Well, it's readable now. :P (I'm sure your mailer has a "reply"
button, though,
that'd also handle quoting for you...)
--
ehird
On 10 Oct 2008, at 03:42, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:35 PM, comex wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(list of numbers which provides absolutely no context, forcing me to
go back to the relevant distributions to find out what's
On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:35 PM, comex wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(list of numbers which provides absolutely no context, forcing me to
go back to the relevant distributions to find out what's being voted
on)
*sigh*.
What, you don't have n
On 7 Oct 2008, at 23:35, comex wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(list of numbers which provides absolutely no context, forcing me to
go back to the relevant distributions to find out what's being voted
on)
*sigh*.
Yeah, we got Bayes to sup
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (list of numbers which provides absolutely no context, forcing me to
> go back to the relevant distributions to find out what's being voted
> on)
*sigh*.
Nomic Wiki Page updating
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 08:09 Sun 11 May , Ed Murphy wrote:
>> pikhq wrote:
>>
>> >When I was Ambassador, I actually posted my report monthly;
>> >this is something that no Ambassador in recent m
On 08:09 Sun 11 May , Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
>
> >When I was Ambassador, I actually posted my report monthly;
> >this is something that no Ambassador in recent memory actually
> >did.
>
> You still are Ambassador, and you still haven't addressed the
> unfulfil
pikhq wrote:
>When I was Ambassador, I actually posted my report monthly;
>this is something that no Ambassador in recent memory actually
>did.
You still are Ambassador, and you still haven't addressed the
unfulfilled duties referenced by CFJs 1918-19.
On 12:35 Sun 11 May , Alexander Smith wrote:
> For Ambassador, I vote COMEX.
> For Herald, I vote IAMMARS.
> --
> ais523
For both, I don't care, for I intend to run for the positions
again. My soon-to-be-campaign speech:
Rather than neglect my duties, I went on hold. Rather than
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> But you can't figure out if the proposal "would meet quorum" until the
>> moment after the voting period has ended. -Goethe
>
> I don't understand how this in any way acknowledges my previous
> comment on the matter.
Oh I see what you're saying, you're r
Goethe wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
All AGAINST votes in this message are cast only on the condition that
the proposal in question would meet quorum even if I didn't vote on it.
Interesting. Technically, this isn't known "w
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> All AGAINST votes in this message are cast only on the condition that
>>> the proposal in question would meet quorum even if I didn't vote on it.
>>
>> Interesting. Technically, this isn't known "w
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
All AGAINST votes in this message are cast only on the condition that
the proposal in question would meet quorum even if I didn't vote on it.
Interesting. Technically, this isn't known "within" the voting period
but only at the endpoint. R
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> All AGAINST votes in this message are cast only on the condition that
> the proposal in question would meet quorum even if I didn't vote on it.
Interesting. Technically, this isn't known "within" the voting period
but only at the endpoint. R2127 probably
On Wednesday 21 November 2007, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> I thought someone else brought that up... "urgency" is not in the
> units of "days."
>
>(f) The vote collector of such a decision CANNOT resolve it if
>it was initiated more than fourteen days ago, or less than
>
On Nov 21, 2007, at 10:16 PM, comex wrote:
On Wednesday 21 November 2007, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
5311: AGAINST (units mismatch)
?
I thought someone else brought that up... "urgency" is not in the
units of "days."
(f) The vote collector of such a decision CANNOT resolve it if
On Wednesday 21 November 2007, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> 5311: AGAINST (units mismatch)
?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
5295 AGAINST (the pool should remain part of the report)
Why? The promotor is obliged to distribute everything in the pool each
week, so separate reporting of the pool is redundant.
A few different reasons. Retaining the obligation increases the
Promotor's i
Ed Murphy wrote:
>5295 AGAINST (the pool should remain part of the report)
Why? The promotor is obliged to distribute everything in the pool each
week, so separate reporting of the pool is redundant.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Not sure. Would you see any problems with "To perform an action 'by
>announcement' is to announce that one performs it"?
I see a problem with it. It implies that a rule that says "the speaker
CAN doff eir hat by announcement" are claiming to control the POSSIBILITY
of the speak
root wrote:
On 11/7/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5287 AGAINST (these are privileges, not duties)
The speaker's assignment of the privileges is a duty.
I would support that change if it were proposed separately. Also,
when it comes time to revoke MwP from someone, non-players (if
On 11/7/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5287 AGAINST (these are privileges, not duties)
The speaker's assignment of the privileges is a duty.
> 5291 AGAINST (I don't see the need)
The need is that the paragraph has been misinterpreted more than once
recently. If the proposal were disin
Zefram wrote:
Josiah Worcester wrote:
He registered 5 minutes previous, making him a first-class player, and
therefore an eligible voter.
R1950:
The eligible voters on a democratic proposal are those entities
that were active first-class players at the start of its voting
p
Josiah Worcester wrote:
>He registered 5 minutes previous, making him a first-class player, and
>therefore an eligible voter.
R1950:
The eligible voters on a democratic proposal are those entities
that were active first-class players at the start of its voting
period.
R2156:
On Saturday 27 October 2007 02:03:51 Zefram wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
> >5261 AGAINST x 5
> >5262 PRESENT
> >5263 AGAINST
> >5264 AGAINST x 5
> >5265 AGAINST
> >5266 AGAINST
> >5267 AGAINST
> >5268 AGAINST
>
> You're not an eligible voter on any of these.
>
> -zefram
>
He registered 5 minutes p
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
5171 AGAINST (invisible F)
Ah, you're in the "unless" == "iff not" camp too? Curious. I had
no idea that interpretation of "unless" existed in formal logic.
I've always used it to mean "if not".
I'm undecided. I think the matter warrants further discussion.
Peekee wrote:
>I am happy unless it rains.
>
>does this mean it is impossible for me to be happy when it is raining?
Another example to ponder:
Murphy CANNOT spend blue VCs UNLESS e is holding a strawberry.
Would that mean that e CAN spend blue VCs in all cases if e is holding
a strawberry
I agree with zefram, so do other people.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Formal_Logic/Sentential_Logic/Translations#Unless
"x unless y" <=> "if (not y) then x" <=> "x or y"
if (not y) then x follows.
if y then x may or may not be true.
I am happy unless it rains.
does this mean it is impossible
Ed Murphy wrote:
>5171 AGAINST (invisible F)
Ah, you're in the "unless" == "iff not" camp too? Curious. I had
no idea that interpretation of "unless" existed in formal logic.
I've always used it to mean "if not".
-zefram
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>5124 AGAINST
What's the problem with proper disinterest? Having the penalty apply
to disinterested proposals provides a perverse incentive for people
to vote on disinterested proposals contrary to their actual opinion of
the proposal. That's what disinterest is meant to
On May 10, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I like this phrasing. Any comments, Zefram, on the phrase "widely
spoken Human language"?
It's woolly. Pick a specific minimum number of native speakers and
then we'll be getting into feasible territory. Wikipedia lists 35
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>I like this phrasing. Any comments, Zefram, on the phrase "widely
>spoken Human language"?
It's woolly. Pick a specific minimum number of native speakers and
then we'll be getting into feasible territory. Wikipedia lists 35
languages with more than 30 million native s
On May 9, 2007, at 6:35 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
Perhaps "widely spoken human language" or "commonly used human
language"? I think both of those wordings would eliminate "I just
made up a language where the name of each player translates to
Bear". At least it should hold up under CfJ
I like
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>What phrasing do you recommend?
It's not the phrasing that's the problem, it's the concept. Even looking
only at geographical regions where bears have historically been found,
there are thousands of natural human spoken languages, no doubt
some of them still unknown to sc
Perhaps "widely spoken human language" or "commonly used human language"? I
think both of those wordings would eliminate "I just made up a language
where the name of each player translates to Bear". At least it should hold
up under CfJ
BobTHJ
On 5/9/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
On May 9, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Zefram wrote:
I vote:
4958: FOR*8
4959: AGAINST*8 ("any Human language" makes it impossible to
administer)
What phrasing do you recommend? I want to make sure that languages
other than USian English are okay, but neither Klingon nor C++ are okay.
-
Benjam
Maud wrote:
On 5/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Related question: if Agoran decisions have not been properly initiated
on proposals for the past few months, does the last paragraph of R2034
still manage to make the result announcements effective?
Rule 2034 does seem to apply here, an
On 5/5/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wow
will every official post I make spark this much controversy? This could be
quite exciting :)
It's possible, but let's hope not. While controversy is fine, there
is also merit in actually playing the game! (Of course, for some
people, the
On 5/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Related question: if Agoran decisions have not been properly initiated
on proposals for the past few months, does the last paragraph of R2034
still manage to make the result announcements effective?
Rule 2034 does seem to apply here, and to any other
Wow
will every official post I make spark this much controversy? This could be
quite exciting :)
BobTHJ
On 5/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael Slone wrote:
>The rules do not vanish when we choose to ignore them.
Quite so, but we have a history of allowing paraphrases and implic
Zefram wrote:
> I don't agree with your adoption of the R991 criterion, at least as
> sole criterion for determining public agreement. You can read R991 such
> that submission of a CFJ (even if the CFJ is later dismissed or refused)
> proves a lack of public agreement, but I think lack of public
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>We now have a lack of agreement for this particular distribution.
R107 doesn't say when the public have to agree on the set of eligible
voters. I think we were all in agreement on who was eligible at the
start of the voting period. If eligibility for a decision can change ove
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>means this distribution (but not prior ones, where there was no
>such disagreement in evidence!) was invald.
Curious argument. I never read "sufficient to enable ..." that way
before. It would mean that the null description, as has previously
been used, would be sufficient if
Maud wrote:
> Since adopting a proposal is an Agoran decision, every notice of
> proposal distribution which omits a description of the class of
> eligible voters is invalid. An Agoran decision is not actually
> initiated except by a valid notice. See rule 107.
We are now splintering into two s
Michael Slone wrote:
>The rules do not vanish when we choose to ignore them.
Quite so, but we have a history of allowing paraphrases and implicitudes.
If you seriously doubt the efficacy of present proposal distributions,
please CFJ on it.
Related question: if Agoran decisions have not been prope
Maud wrote:
> Now, I know we've been following a judicial path lately, but in this
> case we ought to pursue a legislative solution, even if only to make
> the rules clear.
There are many cases where a concise legislative solution is perferrable,
even in a "judicial" game. This is one of them.
On 5/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I note, in passing, that we don't in practice require the notice
defined by R107 to be explicit.
The rules do not vanish when we choose to ignore them.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
I think someone has a comprehension problem here. I don't think
On 5/4/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The "class" of eligible voters may (or may not) be "all current
players and all persons who register during the voting period." There
is nothing in the above clause preventing this interpretation. The
act of registration (which makes a person in
Michael Slone wrote:
>(2) people who join in the middle of the voting period can't vote.
This could be construed as a feature. I thought it was intended as one.
-zefram
Michael Slone wrote:
>By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating an Agoran decision must give a
>``description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable
>public agreement on which persons are eligible''. Therefore, the
>class of eligible voters is set when the decision is initiated and
>can
On 5/4/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, then it appears I submitted an invalid ballot. Such is life.
Well, this points up two problems with the current rules:
(1) it's too hard to tell who is eligible to vote; and
(2) people who join in the middle of the voting period can't vo
Maud wrote:
> By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating an Agoran decision must give a
> ``description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable
> public agreement on which persons are eligible''. Therefore, the
> class of eligible voters is set when the decision is initiated and
> cannot
Well, then it appears I submitted an invalid ballot. Such is life.
On 5/4/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone fancy another group of massively-linked CFJs?
I don't think that will be necessary.
By rule 107 (b), the notice initiati
On 5/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyone fancy another group of massively-linked CFJs?
I don't think that will be necessary.
By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating an Agoran decision must give a
``description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable
public agreement on w
Roger Hicks wrote:
>I hereby submit the following CFJ:
That's the spirit! By the way, submitting a CFJ is legal even if
you're not a player, which is just as well with your registration
still uncertain. But unfortunately that uncertainty does mean that
your CFJ doesn't only hinge on the eligibil
Roger Hicks wrote:
>1. I understand my registration may be under dispute. However, if the CFJ
>returns in my favor, shouldn't my votes be counted?
Yes, that's the way it works. We often have official reports track
actions of questioned legality, noted as being subject to CFJ.
I said in my previo
1. I understand my registration may be under dispute. However, if the CFJ
returns in my favor, shouldn't my votes be counted?
2. I can't find anything in the rules stating that my votes are invalid
simply because my registration occurred after proposals were distributed. If
I'm missing something
quazie wrote:
>1 - has BobTHJ actually registered yet? (I believe thats in CFJ)
E is definitely registered now. CFJ only concerns time of registration,
the two options differing by about eight hours.
>2 - if BobTHJ did register, didn't registration happen after the
>proposals in question were
Roger Hicks wrote:
BobTHJ votes as follows:
4947 - FOR
4948 - FOR
4949 - FOR
4950 - FOR
4951 - FOR
4952 - AGAINST
4953 - FOR
4954 - AGAINST
4955 - AGAINST
4956 - FOR
4957 - AGAINST
1 - has BobTHJ actually registered yet? (I believe thats in CFJ)
2 - if BobTHJ did register, didn't registratio
On Apr 20, 2007, at 8:35 AM, Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I am willing to change my votes in return for tangible
offers.
What constitutes tangibility?
That's a very good point, seeing as this game is entirely intangible.
Promises to do something at a later date don't se
Zefram wrote:
> What constitutes tangibility?
Voting FOR 4930 (democratic for *just* this reason), then a mini-
conspiracy to spend enough VCs on em so e wins, thus resetting eir
voting power?
-Goethe
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>I am willing to change my votes in return for tangible
>offers.
What constitutes tangibility?
-zefram
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
