Zefram wrote:
I approve the Hanging Judge judging CFJs 1666-1667 according
to the pseudo-judgement that Murphy published in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
...
On behalf of the Hanging Judge, CFJs 1666-8 are judged FALSE.
...
I pseudo-judge CFJs 1666 and 1667 false, as direct consequences of the
Maud wrote:
Look at rules 1-15 and 1-16. Ick ick ick.
What's wrong with 1-16?
root wrote:
On 5/24/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
UPDATE RULE 106
SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
WHERE TEXT = 'document';
COMMIT TRANSACTION;
Query OK, 0 rules affected (0.00 sec)
Rules matched: 0 Changed: 0 Warnings: 0
root wrote:
On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A player may change emself from sitting to lying down, or vice
versa, by announcement.
Why can't standing players change themselves to lying down? Seems a
bit arbitrary.
The general concept of this proposal makes
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
at the times in question, neither Yin Corp nor Yang Corp were
tied to any natural persons whatsoever.
In the three minutes before Mon, 21 May 2007 20:19:27 -0500, Quazie was a
partner in Yin Corp, so Yin Corp could be a person under existing legal
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
4986 FOR
...
Your VLOP is still somewhat greater than 1. The reset doesn't take
effect until the end of the week.
Oh, I think I know what it was: I was mis-remembering R1950's
provision that the voting limit at the start of the voting period
is what ends up
Quazie, as primary controller of HP2 wrt its IADoP duties, can you
please confirm or correct the following VC salaries?
Assessor - Murphy (held the office all month)
CotC - no one (comex only held the office since May 20,
previous holder Goethe has deregistered)
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
When a player registers, e receives a random number of Knuts
from 1679 to 1974 (inclusive).
Upon the adoption of this proposal, each player receives a random
number of Knuts from 1679 to 1974 (inclusive).
These should specify who makes the random
Maud Lynn wrote:
Ultimately, a plurality of Agorans decided to Pretend
It Hadn't Happened to avoid a tedious recalculation of the gamestate.
More precisely, they adopted a proposal to the effect of the entire
gamestate is hereby set to what it would have been if Annabel had been
a separate
BobTHJ wrote:
I honestly don't feel that quorum serves much of a purpose other than to
slow the pace of the game now and then and make it difficult to pass
anything during periods of low activity. What is the benefit?
It makes it difficult to adopt a proposal that only a few people
bothered
Goethe wrote:
Zefram wrote:
Only because you lot made such a mess of the ruleset last year.
Tell you one thing, I'm with Kelly here: I'm not returning until you
lot stop re-introducing the useless dross we cut out.
And what useless dross would that be, then, specifically?
BobTHJ wrote:
Hey, you're the CFO. You're the one that has to keep track of it :)
More to the point, there are now two players who possess Shares
without having agreed to the Primo charter. Thoughts?
BobTHJ wrote:
Just to attack this from another angle, I call for civil judgment (per
R1742) on the following statement:
root has violated the agreement titled Primo Corporation Charter
I submit as evidence the Primo Corporation Charter (found at
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
(d) the action would, as part of its effect, make it impossible
to make arbitrary modifications to the rules by any
combinations of actions by players, and/or impossible to
adopt proposals within a four-week period; or
I'm
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for
receiving and distributing Civil CFJs and Appeals.
I don't see the justification for separating these from General CFJs.
CotC is a fairly busy office. This splits it up a bit - not all
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
A partnership's basis is the set containing its natural-person
members, plus each member of the basis of each of its
non-natural-person members.
Yay. This is the right way to do it.
The reason your original Limited Partnerships proposal failed
comex wrote:
I hereby change myself from lying down to sitting.
As Clerk of the Courts, you were initialized to standing.
comex wrote:
Technically the first Timing Orders are invalid as I am not required to
recuse...
You are if the Overtime Period has expired (Rule 408), which I believe
it has for all of the CFJs in that list.
I issue a Notice of Rotation.
CFJs not eligible to be assigned: CFJ 1676, CFJ 1685,
comex wrote:
Or just modify Rule 591 to require judgements be published, so I can
continue letting Murphy do the latter. :)
Has anyone ever submitted a CFJ privately to the CotC?
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I intend to judge CFJ 1677 TRUE on behalf of Human Point Two, as a
direct consequence of Judge BobTHJ's judgement of CFJ 1676.
Surely that would be FALSE? BobTHJ's judgement implies that this
in this kind of statement refers to the CFJ.
Yes, that's right.
Zefram wrote:
As I interpret it, the judgement of CFJ 1669 means that proposal 4939,
which we thought was a legal distribution of Murphy's Re-divide some
offices proposal, was actually not a legal distribution. Murphy's
proposal is presumably still in the proposal pool. What about the
Goethe wrote:
root wrote:
This seems to indicate that a partnership's obligations are only
enforceable to the extent that the partnership's members desire them
to be enforced. Any thoughts?
There are two distinct sets of obligations here.
The first are the set of obligations that the
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
The only difference was the spurious line break in Rule 2139,
right?
Line break in the middle of a word, yes.
I just went back and checked my local message store;
neither the submission nor the purported distribution
contained the spurious line break
quazie wrote:
Zefram wrote:
proto-proposal: CFJ by announcement
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 991 by replacing by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ)
to the Clerk of the Courts with by publishing a Call for Judgement
(CFJ).
Amend rule 897 by deleting the paragraph that begins The Clerk of the
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Mature herbs may be sold by announcement, upon which the seller
receives the listed selling price.
Boring. Everyone will buy Ginger and nothing else, growing capital at
0.37 Np / week. Not only is it the highest yield over the long term,
it makes
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
The Gnome is responsible for keeping track of Wheezes. The
Gnome's report includes Wheeze holdings.
Frequency of report?
As root pointed out, Rule 2143 has a default clause, I'm using it. In
fact, as one would expect, the only offices that specify
http://www.ggl.com/news.php?NewsId=3086
root wrote:
As somebody else pointed out recently, one of the original purpose for
Agoran Contracts IIRC was to house the list of cards, which had grown
long enough that it was just taking up too much space in the ruleset.
If a future rule gets similarly long, we could just amend Rule 1681 to
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Unlike Proposal 4963 (see CFJ 1655), the only difference between what
I submitted and what the Promotor distributed is that some whitespace
slipped into the middle of a word. I argue that this difference does
not create an ambiguity in meaning,
It results
Zefram wrote:
In quoting old rule text it is only necessary to identify which part
of the existing text is meant; precisely what that text is is
determined principally by what text already exists. Specifying new
text is completely different: the rule change is the sole source of
the text.
root wrote:
On 6/18/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consequently, I don't think a proposal can directly
govern the game beyond making instantaneous changes.
What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453?
Upon adoption of this Proposal, the Scorekeepor shall as
root wrote:
I've been around since 1998 -- 9 years! -- but how often do I get
noticed? Twice in my whole life I've been invoked, and one of those
times was a full two years before I hatched, so you can't really say
that it counts! Let's face it, around here I'm appreciated about as
much as
BobTHJ wrote:
My interpretation was that since there is no time-limit for accepting
shares that have been offered, the offer is still on the table.
BobTHJ
On 6/19/07, * Ian Kelly* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
comex wrote:
On Tuesday 19 June 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
I issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ 1684
ASAP (per R408).
I also issue a Timing Order to the CotC to recuse the judge of CFJ
1684 ASAP (per R408).
vii. Every person has the
root wrote:
On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I call for appeal of CFJ 1684. Not because I necessarily disagree with
its reasonableness, but as it conflicts with the (now possibly
non-existent
judgments of) 1622 and 1623. A Court of Appeals on a CFJ out of the
self-
root wrote:
On 6/19/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It can (if the Board of Appeals agrees) accomplish the reversal of
the judgement of CFJ 1684. Not because I disagree with its
reasonableness either, but I find the judgements of CFJs 1622 and
1623 to also be reasonable, and heavily
root wrote:
I disagree with both of you. The sqrt(2) shares that I transferred
to you were created by charter-specified methods (IPO or CFO salary);
and I didn't just offer them, I flat-out transferred them according
to the old section 19.
Yes, I agree with you on that count, but section 19
root wrote:
If partnerships were composed of non-player entities, e.g. if Wal-Mart
were to register, then I don't think there would be a problem. But in
practice the partnerships are constructed by players, resulting in
uneven representation of the natural players. This goes beyond just
BobTHJ wrote:
Below are the votes for BobTHJ and those votes made on behalf of Primo
Corporation as CEO (prefaced by Primo:):
Not to the PF.
Eris wrote:
Sorry I didn't notice this before, but you almost certainly want a
statement that ID numbers must be unique.
Huh? Oh, I see the problem. Revised text:
(b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a
natural number distinct from any ID number, and
bd_ wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:07:13PM -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Regulate ID numbers
(AI = 3, please)
(b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a
natural number greater than any orderly ID number previously
assigned
BobTHJ wrote:
I forsee problems. I assign a chaotic number 1 to a proposal. Ten
years from now, the Neo-proposal Promoter assigns number 1 to a
proposal, blissfully unaware that the number was already assigned 10
years ago.
That's what (e) is for. But even if we do make a mistake,
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
(c) Each ID number SHOULD be as small as possible. A player
may, with Agoran consent, make an entity's ID number chaotic.
Also need an ID number is orderly by default. Possibly also explicate
that orderly and chaotic are antonymous. You
Zefram wrote:
Sounds too powerful, and subject to timing attacks. But perhaps
something like this could hasten VLOP decay: say, for a 3 VC spend
the target's VLOP goes through an extra *0.9 multiplier at the end of
the week. There'll be some level of VLOP where this mechanism matches
the
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I'm thinking SHALL, unless e reasonably believes that assigning a
smaller number might be invalid.
Too tight. If a number assignment has been incorporated into persistent
documents, such as a published ruleset, I shouldn't have to reuse it if
the entity
Roger Hicks wrote:
Bob's Quality Cards is missing from the registration list.
This remains under dispute (CFJ 1687).
The CotC database is a couple days out of date at the moment. I'll
get it caught up later today.
The following issues are also pending:
* HP2's judgement of CFJ 1647
* comex's judgement of CFJ 1611
* Assignment of CFJs 1688-94
Also, assignment of a Board of Appeals to CFJ 1684.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
When a player registers, eir VCs are set to zero.
You're generally retaining language that's based on a single per-player
count of VCs, whereas your new scheme has four separate VC counts
per player. Also, eir VCs are set to zero is a poor expression
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I think it's clear enough, but okay, eir VCs of each color are
set to zero.
That's still a bad wording. The intent is not to modify the VCs
themselves, it's to arrange for em to not have any VCs. No doubt someone
will argue that setting a VC to zero is a null
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
A subject SHOULD NOT be pursued through a new CFJ, but rather
through Appeal.
An appealable subject.
Amend Rule 1742 (Agreements) to read:
You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended?
Yes, they're largely redundant with Rule 1504
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Amend Rule 1742 (Agreements) to read:
You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended? If so,
you may as well drop the Civil CFJ terminology.
To clarify: Currently, rule violations are punished by Rule 1504
(and/or Rule 1742 since the Rules
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Activity is a player switch with values Active (syn. Off Hold)
and Inactive (syn. On Hold), tracked by the Registrar.
I see no benefit in bringing back the Hold synonyms.
Some players want to use them.
Orientation is a player switch
Levi wrote:
I don't see where a proposal's 'chamber' is defined.
This used to be defined as whether the proposal was Ordinary
or Democratic. It may have been repealed when switches were.
Levi wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statement, barring BobTHJ and
Primo Corporation (not sure if I have to bar em or not):
BobTHJ can vote on behalf of Primo Corporation
This does not affect the outcomes of any past proposals:
* 5010-18 would have passed even without
Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
You're removing all the civil remedies. Is that intended?
Yes, they're largely redundant with Rule 1504.
No, they aren't. Punitive damages are in R1504, but you've
deleted a cornerstone of justice, the ability of a judge to assess
compensatory (e.g. non-
Zefram wrote:
When an entity becomes a type of entity with one or more
switches, all of eir switches for that type are set to their
default values.
Careful here. What if an entity changes from one type to another where
both types have the same switch? That is, it has changed
comex wrote:
If Murphy will not bring the CotC database up, e may as well say so.
I have ample time to assign CFJs and even maintain a database if
necessary, but one already exists, and Murphy seems to be the only one
that can access it. I will neither object to this nor support it.
The
At some point, a router setting on this end got mangled. (May have been
when I was configuring a signal booster yesterday.) Anyway, fixed now.
root wrote:
On 6/25/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5047 AGAINST (see above; existing rule could be interpreted as voting
limit on the proposal's current chamber at the start of its
voting period; this is awkward, but so is the phrase ballot
allotment time
root wrote:
On 6/26/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the end of the voting period of an Agoran decision, the first
N ballots submitted by each entity on that decision (where N is
the entity's voting limit) remain valid; all other ballots submitted
on that decision
comex wrote:
I'm not sure whether a majority judging REMAND means that the CFJ has
been overturned, or if bd_ still has to judge.
The latter.
In fact, which above (b) or c)?) does Rule 1447 d) refer to?
(b), but amending it to say as if a majority had judged REASSIGN
wouldn't be a bad
Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
If there are complications, Zefram did
not mention them when calling this CFJ.
The only complication is that at the time GreyKnight believed that e could
not legally assign a judge to those CFJs. Per CFJ 1604 e was mistaken,
but of
comex wrote:
CFJ 1689 is hereby assigined to root.
And here's another conflict of interest. At least with CFJ 1647
I was the only standing judge left (though there's no requirement
to assign judges in increasing order of CFJ number, and in this
case the order should arguably have been
== CFJ 1690 ==
Caller's Arguments:
A challenge should be direct and specific to
a proposal, or at least specific to the precise votes being challenged,
to prevent the R2034 challenge limit clock from expiring. It is not enough
to
I wrote:
comex wrote:
CFJ 1647 is hereby assigned to Murphy.
To avoid conflict of interest without having to lose time and a VC,
I hereby solicit a pseudo-judgement from any of the following players:
bd_, comex, Levi, Manu, root, Zefram
...of which root and Zefram are the only ones not
root wrote:
On 6/27/07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CFJ 1677 is hereby assigned to the Pineapple Partnership.
The Pineapple Partnership is not a player, as per CFJ 1684, so it
can't judge CFJs.
But wasn't there an appeal of CFJ 1684 in progress? I don't recall
There is, yes. The CotC
root wrote:
On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Reinstate Elections
Why? Elections were always unnecessarily complex.
Currently, the entire process is telescoped into a single Agoran
Consent period, requires a separate slate of support and objections
for each
comex wrote:
On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, OscarMeyr needs to re-judge CFJ 1621.
Not until I reassign it to him, I think. But I am waiting for all
three actions until the CotC database is in a good mood again. :)
Ah, you're right, R1447(c) is pragmatic.
The CotC
root wrote:
On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The rules do not regulate the numbering of CFJs.
There is clear game custom that purported CFJs are numbered in order of
submission. There have been no recent ambiguities in any part of this
process. (The purported CFJ 1622
Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
Currently, the entire process is telescoped into a single Agoran
Consent period, requires a separate slate of support and objections
for each candidate,
One is forgetting the worst aspect of the old system, the continual
stream of nomination periods with no
BobTHJ wrote:
Oops! I missed that message the first time around, and thus I figured
I was still waiting on the PP.
Based upon the above-referenced message I judge as follows:
Not to the PF, but apparently R591 doesn't require it to be.
There was a CFJs and judgements must be public proposal
root wrote:
I hereby dispute the announced results for proposals 5030 and 5041, as
partnerships are not players and could not have voted on them.
I disagree (I expect CFJ 1684 to wind up being reversed), but in
any case this unambiguously stops the R2034 clock.
If CFJ 1684 winds up being
BobTHJ wrote:
On 6/27/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
Just to avoid un-needed problems, TTttPF (thanks Murphy!):
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you
think it means.
Which word?
P. (Your second posting of the judgement was also to a-d.)
root wrote:
On 6/28/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Human Point Two judges CFJ 1687 FALSE.
No arguments? I appeal.
I don't see a substantive difference between this and I accept
the caller's arguments as valid. To-ma-to, to-mah-to.
Goethe wrote:
root wrote:
Ack! The whole point of CFJ 1684 was to settle the matter of CFJs
1622 and 1623 while avoiding the paradoxes introduced in those earlier
CFJs.
I was wondering when someone would notice this.
So was I.
However, if HP2 did
not become Speaker, Murphy is still
OscarMeyr wrote:
On Jun 29, 2007, at 12:29 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
1621 OscarMeyr to judge
I believe I'm waiting on this to be officially reassigned to me, pending
the database's hampsters waking up and going to work.
Yes, this is waiting on CotC comex to reassign it to you per
Rule 1447
BobTHJ wrote:
I vote as follows:
Not to the PF.
Eris wrote:
On 7/4/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4) Each week, the contestmaster shall award floor(10/N) points to each
of the N contestants whose Party's membership at the end of the
week was closest to the median of all such memberships.
Where's the Party
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I would use UNKNOWN for this.
Mm. I think UNPROVEN is more descriptive. I'm influenced by the
unproven verdict in Scottish criminal law. Why do you prefer UNKNOWN?
Because it's neutral. Unproven carries connotations of Godelian
incompleteness, or perhaps
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Can anyone expound on why it would be necessary to have both
UNDECIDABLE and another category, whatever it ends up being called,
for when there's not enough information to determine if the question
is undecidable? If it's not capable
of being accurately described as either
Office Report (* = monthly) Last published ( * = due)
-- (** = overdue)
Registrar Players, Fora *Tue 3 Jul 07
Should have been Thu 12 Jul 07.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Amend Rule 2126 to assign each player a state with a population,
some portion of which supports em.
What will this achieve?
Nothing directly, but maybe others will come up with new effects
based on these populations. (This is roughly inspired by my
Unruly
Zefram wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gains two Green VCs if the office has a weekly report, or
one Green VC if the office has only a monthly report,
What if the office has neither?
Then the office has no salary.
What about non-report duties? The office of promotor
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Mostly just renaming things for flavor, but there is a
bit of substance.]
I dislike most of the renaming.
Meh. I dislike abstract names. (In the first draft of the Card
rules, everything operated directly on pending draws; it was
later amended
root wrote:
On 7/17/07, Peekee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On behalf of Agora I hereby repeal all rules, regulations, terms and
any and all other parts of the Primo Coporation and its charter. The
Primo Coporation no longer exists.
...
As Primo unconditionally allows Agora permission to change
root wrote:
[the purported judgement of CFJ 1623]
was also a rather flimsy analysis. It relied upon the assertion that
R754 was not clear on the matter,
Yes.
which is patent nonsense
No.
as person is not primarily a legal term.
That's precisely why it asserted that R754 was
root wrote:
On 7/18/07, *Ed Murphy* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
root wrote:
[the purported judgement of CFJ 1623]
was also a rather flimsy analysis. It relied upon the assertion that
R754 was not clear on the matter,
Yes.
which
Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign CFJ 1701 to Human Point Two.
I intend to cause Human Point Two to judge this FALSE, with the
following arguments:
Most jurisdictions support a type of partnership in which some or
all partners are responsible for a proper subset of the partnership's
obligations.
Zefram wrote:
I call for appeal of Primo's judgement of CFJ 1694. Arguments:
[snip]
This case has similarities to CFJ 1704. In that case, concerning Primo
Corporation, the judge ruled that the possibility of direct modification
of Primo's charter by the adoption of an Agoran proposal
Zefram wrote:
Second thoughts: with Red VC rewards now varying massively in magnitude,
the one-per-week clause needs to be refined. I think that in each week
each proposer should receive the largest single Red VC reward available
from eir proposals that week, rather than whichever was
I wrote:
Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign CFJ 1707 to Human Point Two.
I intend to cause Human Point Two to judge TRUE.
Arguments:
The statement This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to make
changes to its ruleset is reasonably equivalent to This nomic's
rules change whenever the rules
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Player VLDP EVLOP VVLOP VCs (* = Gray)
root 1 6 1111* 1B
You haven't applied the end-of-week change that copies VVLOP to EVLOP
Rule 1551 says, in part:
When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that
the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the
time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a
document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
Wooble recently reported on protectorates.
Message-ID? I don't see this one in the a-o archive.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was to a-o. It replaced an earlier attempt at an ambassador's report,
also to a-o, on the same day.
Oh, I do have
Zefram wrote:
open judicial cases
For the benefit of those who prefer tables:
Case Question Applicable Open Assigned Judge / Panel
1621 veracity 8 Feb 07 26 Jun 07 18 Jul 07 OscarMeyr
1651
I've changed Lying down to Supine. I've added UNDECIDABLE,
IRRELEVANT, UNDETERMINED (veracity), AFFIRM and OVERRULE
(disposition) to the list of possible judgements.
I have not altered any data on past cases.
There is no code for recording judgements for culpability or
sentencing, nor (due to
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I recommend a proposal to clarify this paragraph of Rule 1551 (which
Proposal 5101 does not attempt to alter),
P5101 makes the scope of ratification clearer. What aspect of R1551 do
you think needs to be further clarified?
What happens if the ratified
Zefram wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
It would be good to have R2117 subsumed into deputation as well, but
that's a more complex change.
Yes, it seems odd to me that we have such a different procedure for that.
R2117 was one of the specific instances from which deputation was
generalized; the
Zefram wrote:
The idea with these proposals is that you vote for your preferred minimum
quorum and also for all the higher ones. Presumably if you want a minimum
quorum of three then you also think that four would be an improvement
(though a lesser one) on the present five. If three doesn't
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Why not to repeal Rule 1795
R1795 wouldn't do much to stop you if you wanted to do that. My favoured
arrangement is that proposals should not be able to impose obligations
directly (no more than they can create legal fictions), so if you
101 - 200 of 3133 matches
Mail list logo
