Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
ais523 wrote: > On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 16:57 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote: >> TtTTPF with a bottom-post > > Is this a plausible synonym for TTttPF? The capitalisation there makes > no sense. The message itself was ttPF, and I can't think of any other reasonable interpretation, so I say yes.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 16:57 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote: > TtTTPF with a bottom-post Is this a plausible synonym for TTttPF? The capitalisation there makes no sense. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
NttPF On Sunday, November 7, 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 10-11-07 09:39 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > > Ugh, you're right. I transfer a prop from myself (for getting > 6864 and 6865 mixed up) to coppro (for pointing it out). > > 6864 still failed quorum (and would have failed even if I had > voted FOR it, actually I probably would have voted PRESENT). > > CoE on my previous results message for 6863-69, admitted: my > votes on 6865 were ineffective. I hereby resolve the decision > on 6865 as follows: > > ais523 voted 5F > G. voted 7F > Tiger voted 2F > Wooble voted 5F > outcome is FAILED QUORUM > > > I submit a proposal identical to Proposal 6864 in every attribute I can > control, and then pay a fee to make it Distributable. > > -coppro >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
On 10-11-07 09:39 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Ugh, you're right. I transfer a prop from myself (for getting 6864 and 6865 mixed up) to coppro (for pointing it out). 6864 still failed quorum (and would have failed even if I had voted FOR it, actually I probably would have voted PRESENT). CoE on my previous results message for 6863-69, admitted: my votes on 6865 were ineffective. I hereby resolve the decision on 6865 as follows: ais523 voted 5F G. voted 7F Tiger voted 2F Wooble voted 5F outcome is FAILED QUORUM I submit a proposal identical to Proposal 6864 in every attribute I can control, and then pay a fee to make it Distributable. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 01:18:28 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> 6863 O 1 2.0 coppro Be Exact > AGAINST, announcing the amount should be SHALL >> 6864 O 1 3.0 coppro Urgency simplified > already failed quorum (the down side of urgent proposals is that they > can fail quorum faster) This proposal was urgent? I don't remember that. Did you maybe just think that because the name includes 'urgency'? Sean
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
Sent from my iPhone On Oct 25, 2010, at 5:37 AM, ais523 wrote: >> 6867 O 0 2.0 omd F fix > AGAINST without an active PSM, making this platonic means we end up in > unknown gamestate very quickly The proposal doesn't affect the self-ratification clause...
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
On 10-10-24 11:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: I transfer a kudo from Wooble (for the delay) to G. (for reminding me of the shorter voting period, which I would otherwise have botched). prop? -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
omd wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> NUM  C I AI  SUBMITTER      TITLE >> 6863 O 1 2.0 coppro        Be Exact > AGAINST >> 6864 O 1 3.0 coppro        Urgency simplified > FOR >> 6865 O 1 2.0 G.          List Fixes > AGAINST >> 6866 O 0 1.7 coppro        P Fix > FOR >> 6867 O 0 2.0 omd         F fix > FOR >> 6868 O 1 2.0 omd         Refactor contracts > FOR >> 6869 O 1 1.7 G.          auto-remand > FOR Are you still the Crown Prince? If so, then these are all ineffective because your voting limit is 0.
