PRESENT on the first, FOR the other ones. On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 23:12 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: >> ID Author(s) AI Title Pender Pend fee > I vote as follows: >> 7869* babelian 2.0 Agoraculture v. 2.0 babelian 10 sh. > AGAINST. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea but this needs much > more development before passing it (plus likely attention from someone > skilled in understanding how Agoran rules and precedents affect how > it's possible to interfere with proposal voting). It may be that we > need a framework for screwing-with-votes that's more complex and > general than the current one. >> 7870* V.J Rada 2.0 Cards are appealable 2.0 V.J Rada 10 sh. > AGAINST; criminialising dependent action intents makes me really uneasy > (given that intents aren't actually actions, and are often required to > keep a player's options open; in some past rulesets, we've required > almost every statement to the public fora to be truthful, with the > exception of dependent action intents) >> 7871* V.J Rada 3.0 Minor fixes (sans typos) V.J Rada 10 sh. > FOR, very much so > > -- > ais523
-- >From V.J Rada
