DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6344-6354
Sgeo wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Sgeo wrote: 6351 D 2 2.0 C-walkernone AGAINST (Please also secure ceasing to be a Senator if you're going to secure becoming a Senator.) I change my vote on 6351 to AGAINST, for the same reason. I retract my vote on 6351. I vote AGAINST 6351. This missed the end of the voting period by a few hours. (6351 is going to fail anyway; resolution coming up shortly.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6344-6354
2009/6/10 Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com: On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: 6346 O 2 1.0 coppro Ribbon oops ENDORSE... a trustworthy player If this was a valid vote, I retract it, and vote AGAINST instead. If it was not a valid vote, does this read to simply vote AGAINST or not do anything? -- -Tiger
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6344-6354
Sgeo wrote: 6345 D 2 3.0 Pavitra Time travel FOR, unless there's reason to believe that this can hurt Agora. I change this vote to FOR. Ineffective, you can't directly change a vote.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6344-6354
c-walker wrote: 6346 O 2 1.0 coppro Ribbon oops ENDORSE... a trustworthy player If this was a valid vote, I retract it, and vote AGAINST instead. It wasn't, so you don't.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6344-6354
6351 D 2 2.0 C-walker none Endorse Sgeo, or PRESENT if e doesn't vote on this That happens automatically now.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6344-6354
Kerim Aydin wrote: I vote: 6344 O 1 1.0 BobTHJ Nicked Off AGAINST. If this comes close to passing I'll start insisting on my full nickname before it passes. I shall also insist on the long version after it passes and violate the rule in civil protest. If you choose to blot me out of the game, so be it. Why not Agora the Beautiful while you're at it? As written, the proposal appears to grandfather old nicknames, since there's no way to force established players to pick names.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6344-6354
I vote as follows: 6344 O 1 1.0 BobTHJ Nicked Off PRESENT 6345 D 2 3.0 Pavitra Time travel FOR 6346 O 2 1.0 coppro Ribbon oops FOR 6347 O 0 1.0 coppro Ribbon cleanup FOR 6348 O 1 1.0 coppro B Friends FOR 6349 D 1 2.0 Pavitra Newbie Friendly AGAINST 6350 O 1 1.7 coppro none AGAINST 6351 D 2 2.0 C-walker none AGAINST 6352 O 0 1.0 Murphy Begin at the beginning AGAINST 6353 D 1 2.0 Murphy s/object/either AGAINST 6354 D 1 2.0 ais523 Sensible Rest destruction FOR Kyle Marek-Spartz - KDØGTK
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6344-6354
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:26, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: I vote: 6344 O 1 1.0 BobTHJ Nicked Off AGAINST. If this comes close to passing I'll start insisting on my full nickname before it passes. I shall also insist on the long version after it passes and violate the rule in civil protest. If you choose to blot me out of the game, so be it. Why not Agora the Beautiful while you're at it? As written, the proposal appears to grandfather old nicknames, since there's no way to force established players to pick names. Plus you provided a shortened alternative (G.) so your nickname selection would be in compliance with this rule anyway. It wasn't aimed at you. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6344-6354
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:26, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: I vote: 6344 O 1 1.0 BobTHJ Nicked Off AGAINST. If this comes close to passing I'll start insisting on my full nickname before it passes. I shall also insist on the long version after it passes and violate the rule in civil protest. If you choose to blot me out of the game, so be it. Why not Agora the Beautiful while you're at it? As written, the proposal appears to grandfather old nicknames, since there's no way to force established players to pick names. Plus you provided a shortened alternative (G.) so your nickname selection would be in compliance with this rule anyway. It wasn't aimed at you. I will reject the shortened alternative before this passes. But there's a rather more substantial bug; by legislating nicknames, it makes them the official name, so officer's reports are inaccurate without them. If I choose a new long nick (think *truly* long), and REFUSE to pick a short alternative, I will *happily* take the 5-blot penalty in return for seeing officers be required to reproduce the full nickname or be dinged for not producing a full report. The way it is now, with no legislation and flexible judicial guidance, coppro is free to use Goethe in eir report with nothing but minor but ineffectual annoyance from me. Do you really want to give me or any player the ability to formally declare such expediencies to be inaccurate? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6344-6354
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:07, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:26, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: I vote: 6344 O 1 1.0 BobTHJ Nicked Off AGAINST. If this comes close to passing I'll start insisting on my full nickname before it passes. I shall also insist on the long version after it passes and violate the rule in civil protest. If you choose to blot me out of the game, so be it. Why not Agora the Beautiful while you're at it? As written, the proposal appears to grandfather old nicknames, since there's no way to force established players to pick names. Plus you provided a shortened alternative (G.) so your nickname selection would be in compliance with this rule anyway. It wasn't aimed at you. I will reject the shortened alternative before this passes. But there's a rather more substantial bug; by legislating nicknames, it makes them the official name, so officer's reports are inaccurate without them. If I choose a new long nick (think *truly* long), and REFUSE to pick a short alternative, I will *happily* take the 5-blot penalty in return for seeing officers be required to reproduce the full nickname or be dinged for not producing a full report. The way it is now, with no legislation and flexible judicial guidance, coppro is free to use Goethe in eir report with nothing but minor but ineffectual annoyance from me. Do you really want to give me or any player the ability to formally declare such expediencies to be inaccurate? -G. The rule uses SHOULD not SHALL. Officers are only encouraged to use the official nickname, not required to do so. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6344-6354
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: The rule uses SHOULD not SHALL. Officers are only encouraged to use the official nickname, not required to do so. Nice. Punishment for no purpose. Now *that's* treating Agora right good forever. I shall choose no official nickname whatsoever, refer to myself by a very long name, and let the officers sort it out however they want. If your rule purports to stop that sort of thing it is certainly against the R101 right of communication. An attempt to regulate and punish the generally unregulatable strikes me as not being particularly good policy. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6344-6354
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Sgeosgeos...@gmail.com wrote: 6345 D 2 3.0 Pavitra Time travel FOR, unless there's reason to believe that this can hurt Agora. H. Assessor: please evaluate this as a conditional vote evaluating to no vote :P
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6344-6354
Sgeo wrote: AGAINST -- It's probably my imagination, but I think that could be interpreted to mean that once those conditions come about, anyone can destroy any rests.. If so, the bug is in the current Ruleset (but harder to exploit).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6344-6354
Wooble wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Sgeosgeos...@gmail.com wrote: 6345 D 2 3.0 Pavitra Time travel FOR, unless there's reason to believe that this can hurt Agora. H. Assessor: please evaluate this as a conditional vote evaluating to no vote :P Done, on the grounds of insufficient clarity.
