Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I don’t 
see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing the 
ability to easily clean up some mess.


In addition to what G. listed, there may be cases where it is _required_ 
(or at least impractical to avoid) for the Assessor to resolve proposals 
out of order because of voting period extensions.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: Fwd: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

* don't think I've _ever_ used it. That was a typo, not an attempt at verbal 
trickery,

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 11:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  
wrote:

> I would like to point out that neither of my proposals are even going to be 
> adopted unless a large swathe of people change their minds suddenly and 
> against character, so y'all are massively overthinking this...
>
> As for the pledge, I agree with G., it's entirely unreasonable. The 
> Assessor's ability to resolve proposals out of order (even occasionally for 
> personal gain, although I confess I don't think I've never used it to the 
> tune of 11.8% of a win before) is neither new nor historically controversial. 
> And if you disagree, well, feel free to announce your intent to impeach me.
>
> -twg
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 5:14 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu 
> wrote:
>
> > If I were the assessor, I wouldn't make this pledge personally. It's
> > far too constraining for a few votes, and as I mentioned there's some
> > good and valid reasons to resolve out-of-order, and 5 is a high bar.
> > Your original intent was just to make sure 8133 was resolved before the
> > others in this batch. There are no prior batches in the pipeline or
> > any reason in the current batch to go out-of-order. You could just
> > say "unless e pledges to resolve 8133 before e resolves any other
> > decision".
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> >
> > > Let me try to fix this again.
> > > I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to:
> > > ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window lasting
> > > until 60 days after eir time acting as Assessor has ended, to always
> > > resolve proposals in numerical order, unless e recieves 5 consent to do
> > > otherwise, and to never deputize anyone who has not made a pledge 
> > > identical
> > > to eirs, the breaking of which is a Class N crime, for some N greater than
> > > or equal to 6
> > > AGAINST otherwise
> > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > From: "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
> > > Date: Nov 27, 2018 11:27
> > > Subject: Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
> > > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
> > > Cc:
> > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 08:20 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I
> > > > don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing
> > > > the ability to easily clean up some mess.
> > >
> > > It could potentially work as a counterscam, but if we need to do this
> > > in an emergency, we could just have the Assessor resign and then have
> > > someone deputise to resolve them in the required order.
> > > Come to think of it, the pledge being requested here could be worked
> > > around via resigning Assessor (ending the pledge) then immediately
> > > deputising yourself to resolve the proposals out of order.
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > ais523

Re: Fwd: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

I would like to point out that neither of my proposals are even going to be 
adopted unless a large swathe of people change their minds suddenly and against 
character, so y'all are massively overthinking this...

As for the pledge, I agree with G., it's entirely unreasonable. The Assessor's 
ability to resolve proposals out of order (even occasionally for personal gain, 
although I confess I don't think I've never used it to the tune of 11.8% of a 
win before) is neither new nor historically controversial. And if you disagree, 
well, feel free to announce your intent to impeach me.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 5:14 PM, Kerim Aydin  
wrote:

>
>
> If I were the assessor, I wouldn't make this pledge personally. It's
> far too constraining for a few votes, and as I mentioned there's some
> good and valid reasons to resolve out-of-order, and 5 is a high bar.
>
> Your original intent was just to make sure 8133 was resolved before the
> others in this batch. There are no prior batches in the pipeline or
> any reason in the current batch to go out-of-order. You could just
> say "unless e pledges to resolve 8133 before e resolves any other
> decision".
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:
>
> > Let me try to fix this again.
> > I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to:
> > ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window lasting
> > until 60 days after eir time acting as Assessor has ended, to always
> > resolve proposals in numerical order, unless e recieves 5 consent to do
> > otherwise, and to never deputize anyone who has not made a pledge identical
> > to eirs, the breaking of which is a Class N crime, for some N greater than
> > or equal to 6
> > AGAINST otherwise
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
> > Date: Nov 27, 2018 11:27
> > Subject: Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
> > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
> > Cc:
> > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 08:20 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >
> > > Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I
> > > don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing
> > > the ability to easily clean up some mess.
> >
> > It could potentially work as a counterscam, but if we need to do this
> > in an emergency, we could just have the Assessor resign and then have
> > someone deputise to resolve them in the required order.
> > Come to think of it, the pledge being requested here could be worked
> > around via resigning Assessor (ending the pledge) then immediately
> > deputising yourself to resolve the proposals out of order.
> > --
> > ais523

Re: Fwd: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[Jacob Arduino]

I see potential impeachment as an additional rather than an alternative
disincentive

On Nov 27, 2018 12:16, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:



If I were the assessor, I wouldn't make this pledge personally.  It's
far too constraining for a few votes, and as I mentioned there's some
good and valid reasons to resolve out-of-order, and 5 is a high bar.

Your original intent was just to make sure 8133 was resolved before the
others in this batch.  There are no prior batches in the pipeline or
any reason in the current batch to go out-of-order.  You could just
say "unless e pledges to resolve 8133 before e resolves any other
decision".


On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> Let me try to fix this again.
> I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to:
> ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window lasting
> until 60 days after eir time acting as Assessor has ended, to always
> resolve proposals in numerical order, unless e recieves 5 consent to do
> otherwise, and to never deputize anyone who has not made a pledge
identical
> to eirs, the breaking of which is a Class N crime, for some N greater than
> or equal to 6
> AGAINST otherwise
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" 
> Date: Nov 27, 2018 11:27
> Subject: Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
> To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" 
> Cc:
>
> On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 08:20 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I
> > don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing
> > the ability to easily clean up some mess.
>
> It could potentially work as a counterscam, but if we need to do this
> in an emergency, we could just have the Assessor resign and then have
> someone deputise to resolve them in the required order.
>
> Come to think of it, the pledge being requested here could be worked
> around via resigning Assessor (ending the pledge) then immediately
> deputising yourself to resolve the proposals out of order.
>
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: Fwd: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[Kerim Aydin]

If I were the assessor, I wouldn't make this pledge personally.  It's
far too constraining for a few votes, and as I mentioned there's some
good and valid reasons to resolve out-of-order, and 5 is a high bar.

Your original intent was just to make sure 8133 was resolved before the
others in this batch.  There are no prior batches in the pipeline or
any reason in the current batch to go out-of-order.  You could just
say "unless e pledges to resolve 8133 before e resolves any other
decision".

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> Let me try to fix this again.
> I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to:
> ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window lasting
> until 60 days after eir time acting as Assessor has ended, to always
> resolve proposals in numerical order, unless e recieves 5 consent to do
> otherwise, and to never deputize anyone who has not made a pledge identical
> to eirs, the breaking of which is a Class N crime, for some N greater than
> or equal to 6
> AGAINST otherwise
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" 
> Date: Nov 27, 2018 11:27
> Subject: Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
> To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" 
> Cc:
> 
> On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 08:20 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I
> > don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing
> > the ability to easily clean up some mess.
> 
> It could potentially work as a counterscam, but if we need to do this
> in an emergency, we could just have the Assessor resign and then have
> someone deputise to resolve them in the required order.
> 
> Come to think of it, the pledge being requested here could be worked
> around via resigning Assessor (ending the pledge) then immediately
> deputising yourself to resolve the proposals out of order.
> 
> 
> -- 
> ais523
>

Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[Kerim Aydin]

There have been quite a few times where proposals in the same batch operate
on the same rule in an uncoordinated way, and someone realizes "hey, if these
are resolved in order, something fails, but in reverse order they both work
as intended".  A simple request to the assessor fixes things easily without
needing follow-on proposals.

There have also been cases where a proposal changes something that affects
the voting system itself, so the assessor will say "for safety's sake, I'm 
going to resolve all the other changes [before/after] the big voting change".
So, for example, changes to Voting Strength or Quorum don't happen halfway
through the resolution of a particular batch.

In general, I think it's a good idea that each Officer have a procedural trick
or two as a perk of the office and to use to counterscam if needed - if they
abuse it, that's what Impeachment is for (I don't think an occasional profit
like this one is "abuse" unless e uses it constantly).

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I don’t see 
> any 
> off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing the ability to easily
> clean up some mess. 
> 
> Gaelan
> 
> > On Nov 27, 2018, at 7:29 AM, Jacob Arduino  wrote:
> > 
> > Good catch
> > I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to:
> > ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window of the
> > remainder of eir time as Assessor, to always resolve proposals in numerical
> > order
> > AGAINST otherwise
> > 
> > ---------- Forwarded message -----
> > From: Ørjan Johansen 
> > Date: Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 04:42
> > Subject: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
> > To: 
> > 
> > 
> >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> >> 
> >> 8135  twg, D Margaux  2.0   Blot Decay (Reprise)
> >> ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
> >> AGAINST otherwise
> > 
> >> 8137  Aris, twg, Trigon   3.0   Uncorrecting Rewards
> >> ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
> >> AGAINST otherwise
> > 
> >> 8138  twg 2.5   Access to contracts' assets
> >> ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
> >> AGAINST otherwise
> > 
> > While I applaud the attempt to prevent the Assessor from gaining personal
> > advantage by reordering resolutions again, I don't think these work,
> > because conditionals are evaluated at the end of the _voting period_, not
> > when the proposals are later resolved.
> > 
> > Suggestion: Try something like "ENDORSE twg if e has pledged not to gain
> > personal advantage by reordering proposal resolutions for this batch."
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Ørjan.
> 
>

Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk]

On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 08:20 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I
> don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing
> the ability to easily clean up some mess. 

It could potentially work as a counterscam, but if we need to do this
in an emergency, we could just have the Assessor resign and then have
someone deputise to resolve them in the required order.

Come to think of it, the pledge being requested here could be worked
around via resigning Assessor (ending the pledge) then immediately
deputising yourself to resolve the proposals out of order.

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[Gaelan Steele]

Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I don’t see any 
off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing the ability to easily 
clean up some mess. 

Gaelan

> On Nov 27, 2018, at 7:29 AM, Jacob Arduino  wrote:
> 
> Good catch
> I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to:
> ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window of the
> remainder of eir time as Assessor, to always resolve proposals in numerical
> order
> AGAINST otherwise
> 
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Ørjan Johansen 
> Date: Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 04:42
> Subject: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
> To: 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:
>> 
>> 8135  twg, D Margaux  2.0   Blot Decay (Reprise)
>> ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
>> AGAINST otherwise
> 
>> 8137  Aris, twg, Trigon   3.0   Uncorrecting Rewards
>> ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
>> AGAINST otherwise
> 
>> 8138  twg 2.5   Access to contracts' assets
>> ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
>> AGAINST otherwise
> 
> While I applaud the attempt to prevent the Assessor from gaining personal
> advantage by reordering resolutions again, I don't think these work,
> because conditionals are evaluated at the end of the _voting period_, not
> when the proposals are later resolved.
> 
> Suggestion: Try something like "ENDORSE twg if e has pledged not to gain
> personal advantage by reordering proposal resolutions for this batch."
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[Jacob Arduino]

Sorry, missed a stipulation:
I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to:
ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window of the
remainder of eir time as Assessor, to always resolve proposals in numerical
order, the breaking of which is a Class 6 crime
AGAINST otherwise

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:29 AM Jacob Arduino 
wrote:

> Good catch
> I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to:
> ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window of the
> remainder of eir time as Assessor, to always resolve proposals in numerical
> order
> AGAINST otherwise
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Ørjan Johansen 
> Date: Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 04:42
> Subject: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
> To: 
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:
>
> > 8135  twg, D Margaux  2.0   Blot Decay (Reprise)
> > ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
> > AGAINST otherwise
>
> > 8137  Aris, twg, Trigon   3.0   Uncorrecting Rewards
> > ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
> > AGAINST otherwise
>
> > 8138  twg 2.5   Access to contracts' assets
> > ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
> > AGAINST otherwise
>
> While I applaud the attempt to prevent the Assessor from gaining personal
> advantage by reordering resolutions again, I don't think these work,
> because conditionals are evaluated at the end of the _voting period_, not
> when the proposals are later resolved.
>
> Suggestion: Try something like "ENDORSE twg if e has pledged not to gain
> personal advantage by reordering proposal resolutions for this batch."
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>

DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:


8135  twg, D Margaux  2.0   Blot Decay (Reprise)
ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
AGAINST otherwise



8137  Aris, twg, Trigon   3.0   Uncorrecting Rewards
ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
AGAINST otherwise



8138  twg 2.5   Access to contracts' assets
ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
AGAINST otherwise


While I applaud the attempt to prevent the Assessor from gaining personal 
advantage by reordering resolutions again, I don't think these work, 
because conditionals are evaluated at the end of the _voting period_, not 
when the proposals are later resolved.


Suggestion: Try something like "ENDORSE twg if e has pledged not to gain 
personal advantage by reordering proposal resolutions for this batch."


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[Aris Merchant]

1. You can forward it to BUS with a message like “for the public record”,
so that everyone can find it. If you’d sent it to DIS, then it wouldn’t
have taken effect, because DIS isn’t a public forum. In that case, you’d
reply it to BUS with the formula “TTttPF” (this time to the public forum),
causing it to actually have an effect on the game. By the way, if you’re
letting someone know that they made that error, you say “NttPF” (not to the
public forum).

2. Calling CFJs and judging them both happen on BUS, although when there
are official summaries, those go to OFF. If you have questions of
interpretation, as a new player, it’s usually best to ask on DIS, because
the answer may be well established.

Hope this helps!

-Aris

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:49 PM Jacob Arduino 
wrote:

> Oh, okay.  A couple quick questions: should I repost in Business, or just
> be careful in the future?  Also, CFJs go in Business, right?
> Thanks, - Jacob Arudino
>
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon
> >
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link
> >
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM ATMunn  wrote:
>
> > FYI, things such as voting and the like are usually sent to the
> > agora-business list, not agora-official. Official is really only used
> > for reports, and maybe some other office-related duties.
> >
> > On 11/26/2018 6:17 PM, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> > > Votes inline - Jacob Arduino
> > >
> > > IDAuthor(s)   AITitle
> > >
> >
> ---
> > > 8133  Trigon  1.0   Proposals aren't worth *that* much
> > > ENDORSE Trigon
> > >
> > > 8134  G.  2.0   The judge switch
> > > ENDORSE G
> > >
> > > 8135  twg, D Margaux  2.0   Blot Decay (Reprise)
> > > ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
> > > AGAINST otherwise
> > >
> > > 8136  V.J. Rada   3.0   I hate myself
> > > ENDORSE whoever would otherwise be the last person to vote FOR.
> > >
> > > 8137  Aris, twg, Trigon   3.0   Uncorrecting Rewards
> > > ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
> > > AGAINST otherwise
> > >
> > > 8138  twg 2.5   Access to contracts' assets
> > > ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
> > > AGAINST otherwise
> > >
> > > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon
> > >
> > > Virus-free.
> > > www.avast.com
> > > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link
> > >
> > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk]

On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 19:48 -0500, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> Oh, okay.  A couple quick questions: should I repost in Business, or
> just be careful in the future?  Also, CFJs go in Business, right?

Now that you've posted it, it may as well be posted. Rules-wise, the
public fora are all equivalent to each other, so the only reason to use
a particular public forum is to make it easier for other people to find
your posts. (There have been a few attempted scams in which people
intentionally posted messages to the wrong public forum in the hope
that the messages would be missed, but that tends to be self-defeating
due to the Streisand Effect.)

The general rule is that things go to -official if they're officer
reports that help players understand the gamestate; if you want to know
what the state of the game is at the moment, you can check through the
reports in -official to find the one that describes what you want to
know about. Individual voting posts aren't a very helpful form for
that, so the Assessor will post a summary of all the votes for the
record to -official once the voting period has ended, but the voting
posts themselves go to -business.

CFJs go to -business; a helpful rule for this is that if you want to
take a game action but are doing so voluntarily (rather than because
you have a duty to do so), it always goes to -business. (There's an
exception for actions that are highly related to, and prompted by, a
report; however, even posting those along with the report can be
controversial.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[Jacob Arduino]

Oh, okay.  A couple quick questions: should I repost in Business, or just
be careful in the future?  Also, CFJs go in Business, right?
Thanks, - Jacob Arudino


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM ATMunn  wrote:

> FYI, things such as voting and the like are usually sent to the
> agora-business list, not agora-official. Official is really only used
> for reports, and maybe some other office-related duties.
>
> On 11/26/2018 6:17 PM, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> > Votes inline - Jacob Arduino
> >
> > IDAuthor(s)   AITitle
> >
> ---
> > 8133  Trigon  1.0   Proposals aren't worth *that* much
> > ENDORSE Trigon
> >
> > 8134  G.  2.0   The judge switch
> > ENDORSE G
> >
> > 8135  twg, D Margaux  2.0   Blot Decay (Reprise)
> > ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
> > AGAINST otherwise
> >
> > 8136  V.J. Rada   3.0   I hate myself
> > ENDORSE whoever would otherwise be the last person to vote FOR.
> >
> > 8137  Aris, twg, Trigon   3.0   Uncorrecting Rewards
> > ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
> > AGAINST otherwise
> >
> > 8138  twg 2.5   Access to contracts' assets
> > ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
> > AGAINST otherwise
> >
> > <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon
> >
> > Virus-free.
> > www.avast.com
> > <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link
> >
> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >
>

DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[ATMunn]

FYI, things such as voting and the like are usually sent to the 
agora-business list, not agora-official. Official is really only used 
for reports, and maybe some other office-related duties.


On 11/26/2018 6:17 PM, Jacob Arduino wrote:

Votes inline - Jacob Arduino

IDAuthor(s)   AITitle
---
8133  Trigon  1.0   Proposals aren't worth *that* much
ENDORSE Trigon

8134  G.  2.0   The judge switch
ENDORSE G

8135  twg, D Margaux  2.0   Blot Decay (Reprise)
ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
AGAINST otherwise

8136  V.J. Rada   3.0   I hate myself
ENDORSE whoever would otherwise be the last person to vote FOR.

8137  Aris, twg, Trigon   3.0   Uncorrecting Rewards
ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
AGAINST otherwise

8138  twg 2.5   Access to contracts' assets
ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
AGAINST otherwise


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>