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.
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
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
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.
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Note that Rule 2202 (last published Ruleset, which is getting pretty out
of date *grumble*) says:
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
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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo