Yally wrote: > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 13:51, Sean Hunt <rideau3 <at> gmail.com > <mailto:rideau3 <at> gmail.com>> wrote: > > in case of a tie then the first of those players alphabetically > > > Oh, I see how it is. You could always change your nickname to Adams...
Wooble wrote: > Have the quorum numbers been considering Yally active all this time? Sgeo, but yes. I never caught it before because Sgeo always objected before (so there was nothing for me to record), and only caught it this time because the draft CotC report disagreed (at which point I checked the Assessor DB table used to calculate quorum for past dates).
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42 <at> socal.rr.com> wrote: > *6759 OP1 1.0 coppro Ill-conceived Rule 1698 may make this change not occur; we now have all decisions Ordinary by default, with no defined voting limits on ordinary decisions and no way to make decisions democratic.
On 08/02/2010 07:22 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Ed Murphy<emurphy42 <at> socal.rr.com> wrote: >> *6760 OP1 1.0 coppro Push From the Inside >> *6761 OP1 2.0 coppro I Postulate an Assumption >> *6762 OP0 1.0 Yally Clean Up Space > > Also, to prevent self-ratification, CoE: the above proposals may not > have passed if no one had a voting limit on them after 6759 passed. Voting limit is fixed at the end of the voting period and doesn't change after that (R2156), so these proposals will have been unaffected. -coppro
On 08/02/2010 07:20 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Ed Murphy<emurphy42 <at> socal.rr.com> wrote: >> *6759 OP1 1.0 coppro Ill-conceived > > Rule 1698 may make this change not occur; we now have all decisions > Ordinary by default, with no defined voting limits on ordinary > decisions and no way to make decisions democratic. Unless I'm very very mistaken, ordinary decisions have a base voting limit of 3 as modified by Rests and the Chief Whip. Also, the Majority Leader can make decisions democratic and Support Democracy is still a rule. -coppro
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42 <at> socal.rr.com> wrote: > > *6759 OP1 1.0 coppro Ill-conceived > > Rule 1698 may make this change not occur; we now have all decisions > Ordinary by default, with no defined voting limits on ordinary > decisions and no way to make decisions democratic. I. Told. Everyone. This. Doesn't. Anyone. Pay. Attention. Cassandra.
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42 <at> socal.rr.com> wrote: > > > *6759 OP1 1.0 coppro Ill-conceived > > > > Rule 1698 may make this change not occur; we now have all decisions > > Ordinary by default, with no defined voting limits on ordinary > > decisions and no way to make decisions democratic. > > I. Told. Everyone. This. Doesn't. Anyone. Pay. Attention. Cassandra. Actually, I take this back. What I told everyone was that the proposal in question is AI-1 and every rule in question was power-2. So the proposal causes no changes whatsoever to occur, but not for the reason that Wooble cites. -G.
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote: > Actually, I take this back. What I told everyone was that the proposal > in question is AI-1 and every rule in question was power-2. So the > proposal causes no changes whatsoever to occur, but not for the reason > that Wooble cites. -G. The reason I cited was probably wrong; I missed that it leaves us with ordinary decisions, just rather democratic ones.
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 06:37, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear <at> gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42 <at> socal.rr.com> wrote: >> Wooble wrote: >> >>> Having received no objections, I deregister Sgeo. >> >> CoE: This is ineffective, as Sgeo became active on or about >> 21 October 2009 and has remained active since then. > > Admitted; apparently Yally missed this and the Registrar's report has > been wrong for over 9 months. > > I also CoE the most recent Registrar's report, as it fails to list > Sgeo as a player. > > Have the quorum numbers been considering Yally active all this time? Or, since everyone was under the impression (including Sgeo) that Sgeo was inactive, you could just leave him off the list of players and let it self-ratify.
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Aaron Goldfein <aarongoldfein <at> gmail.com> wrote: > Or, since everyone was under the impression (including Sgeo) that Sgeo > was inactive, you could just leave him off the list of players and let > it self-ratify. Considering it was pointed out to me that he was not, in fact, deregistered, that would be ILLEGAL. If I were asked to judge such a case involving a deregistration I'd give the maximum penalty and propose bringing back EXILE.
RSS Feed169 | |
|---|---|
288 | |
26 | |
48 | |
56 | |
23 | |
99 | |
52 | |
100 | |
78 | |
125 | |
159 | |
113 | |
60 | |
93 | |
62 | |
138 | |
96 | |
88 | |
163 | |
17 | |
168 | |
171 | |
286 | |
129 | |
391 | |
143 | |
126 | |
217 | |
351 | |
198 | |
142 | |
307 | |
388 | |
123 | |
73 | |
93 | |
114 | |
107 | |
137 | |
192 | |
147 | |
363 | |
444 | |
528 | |
667 | |
701 | |
1238 | |
1276 | |
815 | |
713 | |
553 | |
426 | |
684 | |
1284 | |
1784 | |
791 | |
412 | |
1459 | |
1461 | |
660 | |
482 | |
296 | |
616 | |
856 | |
893 | |
883 | |
307 | |
258 | |
498 | |
288 | |
476 | |
601 | |
203 | |
110 | |
122 | |
264 | |
135 | |
18 | |
39 | |
47 | |
44 | |
20 | |
18 |
