Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Player VLDP EVLOP VVLOP VCs (* = Gray)
root 1 6 1111* 1B
You haven't applied the end-of-week change that copies VVLOP to EVLOP.
Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
Wooble recently reported on protectorates.
Message-ID? I don't see this one in the a-o archive.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was to a-o. It replaced an earlier attempt at an ambassador's report,
also to a-o, on the same day.
-zefram
Rule 1551 says, in part:
When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that
the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the
time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a
document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
Wooble recently reported on protectorates.
Message-ID? I don't see this one in the a-o archive.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was to a-o. It replaced an earlier attempt at an ambassador's report,
also to a-o, on the same day.
Oh, I do have that on
Zefram wrote:
open judicial cases
For the benefit of those who prefer tables:
Case Question Applicable Open Assigned Judge / Panel
1621 veracity 8 Feb 07 26 Jun 07 18 Jul 07 OscarMeyr
1651
I've changed Lying down to Supine. I've added UNDECIDABLE,
IRRELEVANT, UNDETERMINED (veracity), AFFIRM and OVERRULE
(disposition) to the list of possible judgements.
I have not altered any data on past cases.
There is no code for recording judgements for culpability or
sentencing, nor (due to
I believe my votes on these proposals were submitted within the voting
period to the proper forum and were not counted.
On 7/22/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Voting results for Proposals 5080 - 5087:
NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5080 Oi 1Murphy Compensate for vacant
Ed Murphy wrote:
The recently ratified Assessor's Report lists two dependencies
on CFJ 1688 in the history (left untouched by the second sentence of
the above excerpt), but not in the totals (which may or may not be
affected by the first sentence):
I have interpreted these notes in the history as
BobTHJ, what is your opinion on appeal 1684a? Under the reformed
judicial rules, we need to submit a single judgement as a panel, rather
than three separate judgements.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
5098 Oi 1BobTHJ Bad Taste
AGAINST x 11
Your voting limit on ordinary proposals in this batch is 6, because they
were distributed last week. Your EVLOP didn't increase to 11 until the
beginning of this week.
In addition to the use stated in the proposal, Timing Orders
On 7/23/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
5098 Oi 1BobTHJ Bad Taste
AGAINST x 11
Your voting limit on ordinary proposals in this batch is 6, because they
were distributed last week. Your EVLOP didn't increase to 11 until the
beginning of this week.
Does this
Ian Kelly wrote:
Does this mean I've voted AGAINST x 6 or not voted at all?
You've cast six valid votes AGAINST, which will count, plus five
invalid ones.
A while ago, when VLOPs were mutating more frequently, I pondered a policy
of always voting x , to avoid having to look up my voting
Ian Kelly wrote:
It would be good to have R2117 subsumed into deputation as well, but
that's a more complex change.
Yes, it seems odd to me that we have such a different procedure for that.
I'd rather we had an asap requirement for vote collectors to resolve
Agoran decisions, then deputisation
On Jul 23, 2007, at 5:32 PM, Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Does this have to be done through a rule?
Yes. R2126 says VCs CANNOT be affected except as described in this
rule.. So it needs to be a rule that takes precedence over R2126,
or modify R2126 itself, or modify the rules that
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
5092 Dd 2Zefram lower minimum quorum to four
AGAINST
5093 Dd 2Zefram lower minimum quorum to three
FOR
The idea with these proposals is that you vote for your preferred minimum
quorum and also for all the higher ones. Presumably if you want a minimum
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I recommend a proposal to clarify this paragraph of Rule 1551 (which
Proposal 5101 does not attempt to alter),
P5101 makes the scope of ratification clearer. What aspect of R1551 do
you think needs to be further clarified?
What happens if the ratified
Zefram wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
It would be good to have R2117 subsumed into deputation as well, but
that's a more complex change.
Yes, it seems odd to me that we have such a different procedure for that.
R2117 was one of the specific instances from which deputation was
generalized; the
Zefram wrote:
The idea with these proposals is that you vote for your preferred minimum
quorum and also for all the higher ones. Presumably if you want a minimum
quorum of three then you also think that four would be an improvement
(though a lesser one) on the present five. If three doesn't
On 7/23/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Upon the adoption of this proposal, Zefram incurs a requirement
to publish a sonnet within three minutes after the adoption of
this proposal.
That's a bit harsh isn't it? I mean I would give em 5 minutes at least
BobTHJ
Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Why not to repeal Rule 1795
R1795 wouldn't do much to stop you if you wanted to do that. My favoured
arrangement is that proposals should not be able to impose obligations
directly (no more than they can create legal fictions), so if you wanted
to impose a
20 matches
Mail list logo
