DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Expedition] [AKA Proposal Distribution] Mammon Machine

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Tanner Swett wrote:
 I vote NO on this Mammon Machine proposal.
 
 (Initially I thought there was some scam which would allow the
 proposal to pass as long as it has at least 0.2 times as many FOR
 votes as AGAINST votes. Alas.)

This might be one to let fail quorum.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Expedition] [AKA Proposal Distribution] Mammon Machine

[Gaelan Steele]

I vote against. This sounds like an evil plan for omd to win.
 On Aug 3, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Sprocklem sprock...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On 2015-08-03 19:29, omd wrote:
 I submit the following proposal, pend it, and specially deputise for
 the Promotor to distribute it, thereby expediting it.  For this
 decision, the options are FOR and AGAINST, the vote collector is the
 Assessor, and the AI is the same as the AI of the proposal.  The
 decision's author is arguably no one, or possibly me (I authored the
 proposal, but that isn't what Rule 1950 technically asks about).
 
 Proposal: Mammon Machine (AI=0.2)
 
 Create a new Power-0.2 Rule:
 
  Whoever omd has publicly specified should win the game as a
  result of the proposal Mammon Machine does so upon the
  enactment of this rule.  Then this rule repeals itself.
 
 [That set of people is likely to be correlated with the set of FOR voters.]
 
 Do whatever else omd has publicly specified this proposal should do.  
 [Ideas?]
 
 I vote AGAINST. I feel something like this would be of more success if I
 didn't know how many were voting what.
 
 -- 
 Sprocklem