On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
On another note, is there any reason why it wouldn't be democratizable
right now? We could try to democratize it again. (Also, do the voting
limits matter, given that nobody attempted to cast more than one vote?)
Note that giving no number is equivalent to
I wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, if democratization succeeded, then TRUE
because exactly 1 vote per player was effective; if it failed, then
FALSE because none of omd's attempts reported both Walker's and
woggle's vote counts correctly.
So: Was democratization indeed blocked by a Geronto
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> (Also, do the voting
> limits matter, given that nobody attempted to cast more than one vote?)
This was one of the decisions affected by my forgetting to include
Party. When I originally attempted to distribute it, I requested
everyone vote onc
On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 10:06 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > To the best of my knowledge, if democratization succeeded, then TRUE
> > because exactly 1 vote per player was effective; if it failed, then
> > FALSE because none of omd's attempts reported both Walker's and
> > woggle's vote co
== CFJ 3397 ==
proposal 7568 passed.
Proto-judgement:
Relevant events:
Mon 5 Aug 2013 22:48:45 -0400 omd attempts to distribute, covering the
possibilities that the Chamber is Ordinary, Green, Red, or Purple
Sat 24 Aug 2013 2
5 matches
Mail list logo
