Re: DIS: What's the deal with the ADoP election?

[VJ Rada]

I made a new intent, yes. The old one, I'm told, was totally
ineffective for lacking "without objection".

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:40 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> ah, ok. I figured I wasn't.
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>>
>> G. raised the question of what happened to the ongoing elections, given
>> that my proposal changed the election rules without a proviso to continue
>> the ongoing ones. Then VJ pointed out that e had failed to initiate the
>> decision correctly (e had left out the valid options, per rule 107 this
>> invalidates the decision), so there was no election to actually vote on.
>> Then consensus was to simply ratify the results as having had a winning
>> election, rather than try to sort through the mess of figuring out the
>> status of the elections under the new ruleset.
>>
>> tl;dr you're not yet the ADoP.
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 13:20 ATMunn .  wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, wait, the argument was about the resolution of proposals 7908-7921.
>>> Still, the main focus of this was around this election.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:18 PM, ATMunn . 
>>> wrote:

 So I know that earlier, VJ Rada intended ratified the document saying
 {Just now, ATMunn won an election for ADoP. Just now, Alexis won an 
 election
 for Prime Minister}, however e then pointed the finger at emself for not
 stating that the document was wrong. This was then followed by a bunch of
 arguments.

 So what actually happened here? Am I the ADoP now, or not yet?
>>>
>>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I revoke my agency ORP

[VJ Rada]

October 16. ORP hasn't existed for 14 days. It was in a BUS thread
called "Community Chest".

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> I gave notice a while ago. I revoke the agency ORP.
>
>
> How long ago? Remember there's a 14 day limit.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: What's the deal with the ADoP election?

[ATMunn .]

ah, ok. I figured I wasn't.

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> G. raised the question of what happened to the ongoing elections, given
> that my proposal changed the election rules without a proviso to continue
> the ongoing ones. Then VJ pointed out that e had failed to initiate the
> decision correctly (e had left out the valid options, per rule 107 this
> invalidates the decision), so there was no election to actually vote on.
> Then consensus was to simply ratify the results as having had a winning
> election, rather than try to sort through the mess of figuring out the
> status of the elections under the new ruleset.
>
> tl;dr you're not yet the ADoP.
>
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 13:20 ATMunn .  wrote:
>
>> Oh, wait, the argument was about the resolution of proposals 7908-7921.
>> Still, the main focus of this was around this election.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:18 PM, ATMunn . 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So I know that earlier, VJ Rada intended ratified the document saying
>>> {Just now, ATMunn won an election for ADoP. Just now, Alexis won an
>>> election for Prime Minister}, however e then pointed the finger at emself
>>> for not stating that the document was wrong. This was then followed by a
>>> bunch of arguments.
>>>
>>> So what actually happened here? Am I the ADoP now, or not yet?
>>>
>>
>>

DIS: Re: BUS: I revoke my agency ORP

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


I gave notice a while ago. I revoke the agency ORP.


How long ago? Remember there's a 14 day limit.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: What's the deal with the ADoP election?

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


In about a day I can ratify my document making you the ADoP.


I don't remember if you made a new intent after the one where you forgot 
to say it was a lie.


Note that Rule 2202 (last published Ruleset, which is getting pretty out 
of date *grumble*) says:


  A player SHALL NOT knowingly use or announce intent to use
  Ratification Without Objection to ratify a (prior to
  ratification) document containing incorrect or Indeterminate
  information when a corrected document could be produced with
  reasonable effort, unless the general nature of the document's
  error and reason for ratifying it is clearly and plainly
  described in the announcement of intent.  Such ratification
  or announcement of intent to ratify is the Class-8 Crime of
  Endorsing Forgery.

Note the "use". That means that _resolving_ such an intent is also a SHALL 
NOT and a Crime, separately from making it.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: What's the deal with the ADoP election?

[VJ Rada]

In about a day I can ratify my document making you the ADoP.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:34 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Oh whoops I should probably publish a report!
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> G. raised the question of what happened to the ongoing elections, given that
>> my proposal changed the election rules without a proviso to continue the
>> ongoing ones. Then VJ pointed out that e had failed to initiate the decision
>> correctly (e had left out the valid options, per rule 107 this invalidates
>> the decision), so there was no election to actually vote on. Then consensus
>> was to simply ratify the results as having had a winning election, rather
>> than try to sort through the mess of figuring out the status of the
>> elections under the new ruleset.
>>
>> tl;dr you're not yet the ADoP.
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 13:20 ATMunn .  wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, wait, the argument was about the resolution of proposals 7908-7921.
>>> Still, the main focus of this was around this election.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:18 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:

 So I know that earlier, VJ Rada intended ratified the document saying
 {Just now, ATMunn won an election for ADoP. Just now, Alexis won an 
 election
 for Prime Minister}, however e then pointed the finger at emself for not
 stating that the document was wrong. This was then followed by a bunch of
 arguments.

 So what actually happened here? Am I the ADoP now, or not yet?
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: What's the deal with the ADoP election?

[VJ Rada]

Oh whoops I should probably publish a report!

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> G. raised the question of what happened to the ongoing elections, given that
> my proposal changed the election rules without a proviso to continue the
> ongoing ones. Then VJ pointed out that e had failed to initiate the decision
> correctly (e had left out the valid options, per rule 107 this invalidates
> the decision), so there was no election to actually vote on. Then consensus
> was to simply ratify the results as having had a winning election, rather
> than try to sort through the mess of figuring out the status of the
> elections under the new ruleset.
>
> tl;dr you're not yet the ADoP.
>
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 13:20 ATMunn .  wrote:
>>
>> Oh, wait, the argument was about the resolution of proposals 7908-7921.
>> Still, the main focus of this was around this election.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:18 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>>>
>>> So I know that earlier, VJ Rada intended ratified the document saying
>>> {Just now, ATMunn won an election for ADoP. Just now, Alexis won an election
>>> for Prime Minister}, however e then pointed the finger at emself for not
>>> stating that the document was wrong. This was then followed by a bunch of
>>> arguments.
>>>
>>> So what actually happened here? Am I the ADoP now, or not yet?
>>
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: What's the deal with the ADoP election?

[Alexis Hunt]

G. raised the question of what happened to the ongoing elections, given
that my proposal changed the election rules without a proviso to continue
the ongoing ones. Then VJ pointed out that e had failed to initiate the
decision correctly (e had left out the valid options, per rule 107 this
invalidates the decision), so there was no election to actually vote on.
Then consensus was to simply ratify the results as having had a winning
election, rather than try to sort through the mess of figuring out the
status of the elections under the new ruleset.

tl;dr you're not yet the ADoP.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 13:20 ATMunn .  wrote:

> Oh, wait, the argument was about the resolution of proposals 7908-7921.
> Still, the main focus of this was around this election.
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:18 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>
>> So I know that earlier, VJ Rada intended ratified the document saying
>> {Just now, ATMunn won an election for ADoP. Just now, Alexis won an
>> election for Prime Minister}, however e then pointed the finger at emself
>> for not stating that the document was wrong. This was then followed by a
>> bunch of arguments.
>>
>> So what actually happened here? Am I the ADoP now, or not yet?
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: What's the deal with the ADoP election?

[ATMunn .]

Oh, wait, the argument was about the resolution of proposals 7908-7921.
Still, the main focus of this was around this election.

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:18 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:

> So I know that earlier, VJ Rada intended ratified the document saying
> {Just now, ATMunn won an election for ADoP. Just now, Alexis won an
> election for Prime Minister}, however e then pointed the finger at emself
> for not stating that the document was wrong. This was then followed by a
> bunch of arguments.
>
> So what actually happened here? Am I the ADoP now, or not yet?
>

DIS: What's the deal with the ADoP election?

[ATMunn .]

So I know that earlier, VJ Rada intended ratified the document saying {Just
now, ATMunn won an election for ADoP. Just now, Alexis won an election for
Prime Minister}, however e then pointed the finger at emself for not
stating that the document was wrong. This was then followed by a bunch of
arguments.

So what actually happened here? Am I the ADoP now, or not yet?