Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:
I join this contract. If at any point in the future distributability
is modified with a proposal whose II 1, I leave this pledge.
The second sentence of this won't work unless Time Travel passes before
the hypothetical proposal.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
What about making Distributability like NoVs, where it's with N
support? You get one free proposal per week...
Great idea.
--
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.
2009/6/10 Benjamin Caplan celestialcognit...@gmail.com:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I act on behalf of coppro to support this. I act on behalf of Pavitra
to support this. I act on behalf of zeckalpha to support this. Having
received sufficient support, I make
That was what zooping did.
On 2009-06-10, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/10 Benjamin Caplan celestialcognit...@gmail.com:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I act on behalf of coppro to support this. I act on behalf of Pavitra
to support
Tiger wrote:
2009/6/10 Benjamin Caplan celestialcognit...@gmail.com:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I act on behalf of coppro to support this. I act on behalf of Pavitra
to support this. I act on behalf of zeckalpha to support this. Having
received sufficient
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 22:24 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
And yes, I know that supporting this pledge doesn't automatically mean
voting for the rollback, but the pledge was associated with the repeal.
Hey, I voted
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 22:24 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
And yes, I know that supporting this pledge doesn't automatically mean
voting for the rollback, but the pledge was
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Quazie's probably chomping at the bit, so I'll say I planned to have the
next draft of Cards circulating round about the 15th. (remember idea is
to not have them go through until after the Birthday). -G.
We just have
ais523 wrote:
IMO, Distributability hasn't been anywhere near as much of a disaster as
Committees were. My sense about it at the moment is that the idea is
worthwhile but the implementation is lacking; I'm not entirely sure how
best to improve it, though. (Someone invent Distrib-u-matics
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 12:39 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
IMO, Distributability hasn't been anywhere near as much of a disaster as
Committees were. My sense about it at the moment is that the idea is
worthwhile but the implementation is lacking; I'm not entirely sure how
best to
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Quazie's probably chomping at the bit, so I'll say I planned to have the
next draft of Cards circulating round about the 15th. �(remember idea is
to not have them go through until after the
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
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Quazie's probably chomping at the bit, so I'll say I planned to have the
next draft of Cards circulating round about the 15th. �(remember idea is
to not
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Quazie's probably chomping at the bit, so I'll say I planned to have the
next draft of Cards
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
Do it via a rule, rather than having the proposal floating around; I
don't think a proposal can take effect at a time other than when it's
adopted unless it can take predecence over a power-3 rule.
Er, it's something I've always been meaning to try. Or
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.
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.
OscarMeyr wrote:
If need be, I destroy the Rests created in the Defendant's possession
from the NoV in this case.
According to my records, e has none. H. Insulator BobTHJ?
Pavitra wrote:
Where, if anywhere, do we draw the line between Rolden and AGAINT?
Gratuitous: AGAINT was originally intended to mean FOR (CFJs
1260-61), the opposite of what common sense suggests it's a typo
for. Rolden was originally intended to mean Rodlen, the same
as what common sense
19 matches
Mail list logo
