I still do that in my Monthly report.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Nov 26, 2017, at 1:43 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> I vote as
The proposal numbers don't have anything to do with what is being
decided. That is dependent upon the proposal identity, not the ID
numbers. A proposal can be distributed without an ID number (and often
is with expedition or the new campaign proposals).
-Aris
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 6:19 AM,
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>
>> ID Author(s)AI TitlePender Pend
>> fee
>> ---
>> 7973* Aris 1.0 Sky
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 00:20 Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >> 7880* ATMunn, [5] 1.0 [6] Alexis 1
> AP
> > AGAINST. If you deserve it, claim it right away.
>
> Three of the reward conditions may be
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
7880* ATMunn, [5] 1.0 [6] Alexis 1 AP
AGAINST. If you deserve it, claim it right away.
Three of the reward conditions may be triggered by _other_ people's
actions, so this is not always possible, and Agora has a
Ya I was just going to give myself a win and put Smash Mouth All Star
in the ruleset for a while for that exact reason: an absurd
dictatorship would be disastrous at this point.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> On Nov 21, 2017, at 12:42 AM, VJ Rada
> On Nov 21, 2017, at 12:42 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> AGAINST. By my read, this would change the restriction
>
>>6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same decision.
>
>> to
>
>>6. The voter has no other invalid ballots on the same decision.
>
>> which is
>AGAINST. By my read, this would change the restriction
> 6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same decision.
>to
> 6. The voter has no other invalid ballots on the same decision.
>which is obvious nonsense.
DARN. Knew I should have bribed you again.
Alright show's over boys
Thankfully the expedition only needs to back to last year, when the ruleset
was ratified.
On Sun, Nov 19, 2017, 20:40 VJ Rada, wrote:
> I'm simply taking the current ruleset as authoritative and realizing that
> nobody's exactly going on a decade-old digging expedition to
I'm simply taking the current ruleset as authoritative and realizing that
nobody's exactly going on a decade-old digging expedition to fix the typos.
You're right, I could have phrased a bit better. But the worst that happens
is that, when the rulekeepor miraculously checks all typos in my fixes,
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
7974* V.J. Rada3.0 [2] Really minor fixes V.J. Rada 1 AP
FOR. Note that some of these may be Rulekeepor typos; I will do my best to
investigate and determine which ones are.
Some of the changes are equivalent to "replace text A with
11 matches
Mail list logo