It's not that I want to ratify a scam but, rather, I would have done a
minor scam affecting the outcome and may yet do so if there's another
election; if the result is imposed by ratification, I would not get that
opportunity.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 18:29 ATMunn ., wrote:
> erm. what is going on
erm. what is going on here?
Lmao no I'm not ratifying a scam for Alexis here if I can help it.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> I would possibly object to that, as I had a scam planned but didn't fire it
>> as a result of the decisions being invalid; I wou
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I would possibly object to that, as I had a scam planned but didn't fire it
> as a result of the decisions being invalid; I wouldn't support ratifying if
> it would have made a difference.
If we can't agree to a ratification, then I'd attempt it by Prop
A little earlier VJ Rada CoE'd that the Decision part of the election never
even began (and e was right), so you have to ratify a bit more than the
resolution part.
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Or you could just ratify the resolution of the election. That's even simpler.
>
> -
Or you could just ratify the resolution of the election. That's even simpler.
-Aris
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Actually, maybe the easiest thing is to wait 4 hours for the original
> voting period to end (unofficially), tally the votes, and then ratify
> the ADoP r
I would possibly object to that, as I had a scam planned but didn't fire it
as a result of the decisions being invalid; I wouldn't support ratifying if
it would have made a difference.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:56 Kerim Aydin, wrote:
>
>
> Actually, maybe the easiest thing is to wait 4 hours for
Actually, maybe the easiest thing is to wait 4 hours for the original
voting period to end (unofficially), tally the votes, and then ratify
the ADoP report with the winners as officeholders and ratify the fact
that they were installed via election and the election is over?
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, K
I'll have a go in a bit.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I actually don't know how to properly phrase that under the new Election
> rules.
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > I object.
> >
> > This would take 2 weeks + 4 day objection period + pauses in
I actually don't know how to properly phrase that under the new Election rules.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I object.
>
> This would take 2 weeks + 4 day objection period + pauses in between.
>
> If instead you ratify that a decision started back when you said it
>
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I was waiting because I noticed days later and I hoped nobody else did.
>
> Fun fact: Only one of the Decisions I've initiated was ever valid.
> Obviously ratified now but I can't seem to get all four conditions
> lmao. Only one person (Alexis) ever noticed,
I was waiting because I noticed days later and I hoped nobody else did.
Fun fact: Only one of the Decisions I've initiated was ever valid.
Obviously ratified now but I can't seem to get all four conditions
lmao. Only one person (Alexis) ever noticed, and e didn't this time.
I now have a "checklis
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I now, to a-b, officially "identify" the lack of options noted in my
> initiation.
>
> The ELECTIONS were still initiated (one by G. and one by me) but the
> DECISIONS were not.
Anyway, if you're right, I think we're worse-off now then if you'd let the
De
>By the rules of the time, the Decision was initiated correctly.
THIS IS NOT TRUE. By the rules of the time, they were initiated
wrongly. By the UNAMENDED rules of today (Initiating Agoran Decisions,
rule 107), not changed at all by new proposals) they were still wrong.
I am taking a quibble with
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 08:54 +1100, VJ Rada wrote:
> > And the notice of initiation lacked any set of the valid votes, which
> > I wasn't going to point out but now do. Therefore, the Agoran
> > Decisions were never initiated.
>
> Does pointing it out to a
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Alternatively: the rules of Initiating Agoran Decision state "This
> notice is invalid if it lacks any of the following information, and
> the lack is correctly identified within one week after the notice is
> published:
>
> The matter to be decided (for exa
On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 08:54 +1100, VJ Rada wrote:
> And the notice of initiation lacked any set of the valid votes, which
> I wasn't going to point out but now do. Therefore, the Agoran
> Decisions were never initiated.
Does pointing it out to a-d count?
I'd recommend an explicit "CoE" to a-b, as
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> The rules now also provide no way for the ADoP to resolve such an
> Agoran decision, but the election's initiation stated that the ADoP
> was the resolver. I guess the election would sort of dissolve in thin
> air if this interpretation was taken.
It would b
Alternatively: the rules of Initiating Agoran Decision state "This
notice is invalid if it lacks any of the following information, and
the lack is correctly identified within one week after the notice is
published:
The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781").
A clear i
Some thoughts:
1. The new rule says:
When an election is initiated, it enters the nomination period
Since this wasn't in effect "when the election was initiated", the
election couldn't have entered the nomination period. So I'm
pretty sure we're not in the nomination period.
2. It's poss
I guess this is "an Agoran decision
to select the winner of the election (the poll).". The rule
provides that
"For this
decision, the Vote Collector is the Assessor, the valid
options are the candidates for that election (including
those who become candi
I will contradict you. If you asked the question "is a Decision ongoing
for these elections" I'd say the answer would be yes. I think we're in the
Decision phase. (I'll wait for more discussion before CFJing).
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> If anyone else wants to contradict me on wh
22 matches
Mail list logo
