* don't think I've _ever_ used it. That was a typo, not an attempt at verbal trickery,
-twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 11:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote: > I would like to point out that neither of my proposals are even going to be > adopted unless a large swathe of people change their minds suddenly and > against character, so y'all are massively overthinking this... > > As for the pledge, I agree with G., it's entirely unreasonable. The > Assessor's ability to resolve proposals out of order (even occasionally for > personal gain, although I confess I don't think I've never used it to the > tune of 11.8% of a win before) is neither new nor historically controversial. > And if you disagree, well, feel free to announce your intent to impeach me. > > -twg > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 5:14 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu > wrote: > > > If I were the assessor, I wouldn't make this pledge personally. It's > > far too constraining for a few votes, and as I mentioned there's some > > good and valid reasons to resolve out-of-order, and 5 is a high bar. > > Your original intent was just to make sure 8133 was resolved before the > > others in this batch. There are no prior batches in the pipeline or > > any reason in the current batch to go out-of-order. You could just > > say "unless e pledges to resolve 8133 before e resolves any other > > decision". > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote: > > > > > Let me try to fix this again. > > > I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to: > > > ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window lasting > > > until 60 days after eir time acting as Assessor has ended, to always > > > resolve proposals in numerical order, unless e recieves 5 consent to do > > > otherwise, and to never deputize anyone who has not made a pledge > > > identical > > > to eirs, the breaking of which is a Class N crime, for some N greater than > > > or equal to 6 > > > AGAINST otherwise > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk > > > Date: Nov 27, 2018 11:27 > > > Subject: Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138 > > > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" agora-discussion@agoranomic.org > > > Cc: > > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 08:20 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > > > > > Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I > > > > don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing > > > > the ability to easily clean up some mess. > > > > > > It could potentially work as a counterscam, but if we need to do this > > > in an emergency, we could just have the Assessor resign and then have > > > someone deputise to resolve them in the required order. > > > Come to think of it, the pledge being requested here could be worked > > > around via resigning Assessor (ending the pledge) then immediately > > > deputising yourself to resolve the proposals out of order. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ais523
