Sgeo wrote:
> Why does it matter if someone successfully or unsuccessfully says "TTttPF"?
It changes whether or not quotations are interpreted as part of the text
of the message, and thus actions with them should be considered valid.
These have to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis, but TTttPF
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Sean Hunt wrote:
I CFJ {Warrigal has, at the time of this message, voted on proposal 6164}.
>>> I FAIL.
>>
>> That's probably not sufficiently clear to initiate a CFJ
Wooble wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> I CFJ {Warrigal has, at the time of this message, voted on proposal 6164}.
>> I FAIL.
>
> That's probably not sufficiently clear to initiate a CFJ.
In context, I consider "I FAIL." a reasonable synonym for
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I CFJ {Warrigal has, at the time of this message, voted on proposal 6164}.
>
> I FAIL.
That's probably not sufficiently clear to initiate a CFJ.
Warrigal wrote:
> Voto:
>
>> 6152 D 1 3.0 Pavitra H.
> CONTRAx8
>
>> 6153 D 1 2.0 coppro Patch Bug 6121
> PORx8
>
>> 6154 D 1 3.0 Goethe Third SHOULD fix
> CONTRAx8; no importa la definición en realidad
>
>> 6155 O 1 1.0 comex Refactor falsity
ehird wrote:
> I strongly recommend H. Assessor consider this invalid lest we get
> upside down Ithkuil ballots.
I consider this valid because I recognize the language, and especially
because all three key words are cognates of their English equivalents
(or, in the case of CONTRA, a rough synonym
I strongly recommend H. Assessor consider this invalid lest we get
upside down Ithkuil ballots.
On 2009-03-19, Warrigal wrote:
> Voto:
>
>> 6152 D 1 3.0 Pavitra H.
> CONTRAx8
>
>> 6153 D 1 2.0 coppro Patch Bug 6121
> PORx8
>
>> 6154 D 1 3.0 Goethe Third SHOUL
coppro wrote:
> The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
>> Proposal 6152 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by Pavitra
>> H.
> AGAINST
NttPF
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> Proposal 6152 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by Pavitra
> H.
AGAINST
> Proposal 6153 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by coppro
> Patch Bug 6121
FOR
> Proposal 6154 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by Goethe
> Third SHOULD fix
AGAINST.
> Proposal 6155 (Ordina
2009/3/18 Geoffrey Spear :
> I see no reason to leave an office, especially one with a weekly duty,
> vacant for any longer than necessary. In fact, I'm not sure there's a
> good reason not to require the IADoP to nominate as soon as possible
> for all vacant offices rather than just high-priority
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> As I understand it, it still will be. The paragraph "The Anarchist's
> weekly duties include the performance of the
> following tasks(...)" will remain, so the only things actually
> changing are that it won't have to be replaced as qu
2009/3/18 Kerim Aydin :
>
>> 6164 O 1 1.0 Yally Low-priority Anarchism
> 8xAGAINST. I like my anarchy weekly.
>
> -Goethe
As I understand it, it still will be. The paragraph "The Anarchist's
weekly duties include the performance of the
following tasks(...)" will remain, so the
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> 6155 O 1 1.0 comex Refactor falsity
>> 8xAGAINST. Isn't this duplicated in "misleading"? (Open to voting FOR
>> if I'm missing something).
>
> This would criminalize ev
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 6155 O 1 1.0 comex Refactor falsity
> 8xAGAINST. Isn't this duplicated in "misleading"? (Open to voting FOR
> if I'm missing something).
This would criminalize even accidentally incorrect information if
published a
>> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>>
>> Proposal 6164 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=1) by Yally
>> Low-priority Anarchism
>>
>> Amend the first paragraph of rule 2216 (The Repeal-o-Matic) to read:
>> {
>> The Anarchist is a low-priority office; its holder is re
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 14:33 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/3/18 Alex Smith :
> > As for the question the CFJ was trying to ask; either a right-side up or
> > upside-down moo would have been appropriate to fulfil the obligation,
> > due to rule 754(1) (they are clearly synonyms in this context).
2009/3/18 Geoffrey Spear :
> Actually, at the moment e's required to initiate Agoran Decisions for
> elections even if there are no candidates, and 4 days after your
> nominations, no other nominations can be made until these decisions
> are resolved.
>
Oh, I forgot the IADoP rules are terrible.
2009/3/18 Alex Smith :
> As for the question the CFJ was trying to ask; either a right-side up or
> upside-down moo would have been appropriate to fulfil the obligation,
> due to rule 754(1) (they are clearly synonyms in this context).
So you're judging that you can agree to an upside-down contrac
I nominate myself for the position of Promotor.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> In other words, your harvesting of 2401 fails because its ID number was
> assigned more than a week ago. I haven't checked the other CFJs in your
> list, but suspect many of the others have similar problems. This means
> that the rest of your ac
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 09:19 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I harvest the following CFJ numbers, for 2 WRV each:
> 2411
> 2413
> 2414
> 2415
> 2416
> 2417
> 2419
> 2401
> 2403
> 2405
> 2406
> 2407
> 2409
Murphy's CotC website for CFJ 2401 says:
> Called by Warrigal 7 Mar 2009 20:42:01 GMT
> Assigne
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> You don't have to track it if he doesn't accept.
Actually, at the moment e's required to initiate Agoran Decisions for
elections even if there are no candidates, and 4 days after your
nominations, no other nominations can be made until thes
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 15:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [2] Is a proposal distribution considered a Proposal Pool report?
The PNP reports the emptiness of the pool in the same message that it
distributes proposals. This works as long as there's at least one
proposal distribution each week.
--
ais
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 16:53 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Goethe wrote:
> >
> >> [2] Is a proposal distribution considered a Proposal Pool report?
> >
> > Proposal distributions have been routinely including the boilerplate
> > text "Proposal pool: empty" (wh
24 matches
Mail list logo
