comex wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Surely these are ineffective because they don't have those notes?
>
> They (in theory) gained them at the end of the week (i.e. 00:00) due
> to the spam proposals passing. This was, of course, the purpose of
> them, and the reason that they were partnerships and all that: it
> wasn't just the stupid scam that Goethe complained about. In fact,
> the proposals weren't even supposed to pass, only get VI = 0.5 so that
> the partnerships would get A notes...
Aha. I initiate an inquiry case on the following statement,
disqualifying comex:
Neither Proposal 5956 nor Proposal 5962 has been adopted.
Caller's arguments:
Rule 2156 purports to define an eligible voter's voting limit, not
merely eir initial or base voting limit. Thus, after Rule 2126
increased ehird's voting limit, Rule 2156 reasserted itself and
reset it to eir caste. Thus, the resolutions were ineffective
because they mis-reported ehird's valid votes.
Of course, this should be fixed so that Rule 2126's method works
in some sort of useful method. It should probably also be limited
to the first four days of a proposal's voting period, to allow time
for scams to be countered by democratization.
Caller's evidence:
Rule 2126 (Notes), relevant excerpt
(7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player's
voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is
in progress by 1.
Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions), relevant excerpt
The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is
eir caste at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded
up) if the voter was in the chokey at that time.
