On 29/07/2013 7:33 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
I assume Assessor.
Voting results for Proposals 7530-7547:
COE:
By Rule 1950, the eligible voting entities are set at the _distribution_
of the proposal. I am not sure whether your scam succeeds (well, I doubt
it
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
On 29/07/2013 7:33 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
I assume Assessor.
Voting results for Proposals 7530-7547:
COE:
By Rule 1950, the eligible voting entities are set at the _distribution_
of the proposal. I am not sure whether
On 29/07/2013 7:46 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
See the recent TIME OUT scam... making someone not an eligible voter
does set their voting limit to 0.
I'm claiming you haven't made them not eligible voters in the first
place, even if you deregistered them.
That was the TIME OUT scam -- made
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
On 29/07/2013 7:46 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
See the recent TIME OUT scam... making someone not an eligible voter
does set their voting limit to 0.
I'm claiming you haven't made them not eligible voters in the first
place, even if you deregistered them.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
I don't see anything in the Rules where activity changes affect votes on
proposals after the voting period has already begun. If that was judged to
the opposite effect I would suggest a reconsideration.
That scam was
5 matches
Mail list logo
