DIS: Re: BUS: distributability
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: I spend a Distrib-u-Matic card to make Fix Veto distributable. I believe I had an outstanding intent to make this distributable without objection which was not objected to. I really should mark these things because I seem to forget every intent I make. :/ -- C-walker
DIS: Re: BUS: Distributability test
I intend, without /three/ objections, to make this proposal distributable. Umm, how?
DIS: Re: BUS: Distributability test
2009/6/16 Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk
On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 12:39 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
I submit the following proposal (II=3, Title=A Terrible Proposal):
Create a rule with the following text:
{{{
Any set of persons who between them have at least 10 instances of the
patent title Champion can create arbitrary instruments (which need not
be rules or proposals) by unanimous consent, followed by announcement of
the fact to a public forum. Such instruments are authorised to change
the rules.
}}}
I intend, without /three/ objections, to make this proposal
distributable. (Messing with Distributability is a rather awkward area;
therefore, I've tried to make this proposal truly terrible so that it
really doesn't matter whether it becomes distributable or not.)
Actually, I intend, without three objections, to distribute it. May as
well go the whole way.
Is this even possible? Does the permitted in the sentence if no
other player is permitted to distribute a proposal, anyone can without
three objections mean can or may?
--
-Tiger
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Distributability test
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: Is this even possible? Does the permitted in the sentence if no other player is permitted to distribute a proposal, anyone can without three objections mean can or may? It means MAY, but combined with A player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a Proposal CAN distribute, it's both.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Distributability
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: I used II=2 because I thought it would be a controversial change. Controversy != complexity. -- Taral tar...@gmail.com Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Distributability
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: I spend D# D# D# to flip the Distributability of the Proposal entitled No More Distributability to Undistributable. II-2 is unreasonable for a proposal that replaces a rule with the exact text it had very recently. This required no original thought whatsoever. --Wooble I used II=2 because I thought it would be a controversial change.
