spoon-business: Votes, nweek 3

[Jorg Rathlev <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

First, let me explain that I have voted for the strict bandwidth
proposal (3 proposals per player per nweek) only because I almost
didn't have the time to vote this nweek. I don't like to be limited by
such a rule, but when no one has time to discuss the proposals and
decide how to vote, that doesn't make sense either.


> Proposal 156/0:The Timeline's on this Mobius Strip
YES

> Proposal 157/1:Let's do it right this time
YES

> Proposal 158/1:Five Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Six Hundred Minutes
YES

> Proposal 159/0:Now you see me, now you don't
YES

> Proposal 160/0:The Garbageman Can
NO

> Proposal 161/0:Boondoggles! Boondoggles! Boondoggles!
YES

> Proposal 162/0:Santa Claus is coming to town!
YES

> Proposal 163/0:Proxies
I cast no vote on this issue.

> Proposal 165/1:Judicial reform 1
NO
("specify a defendant"? So, I question player A's action and can name
player B as the defendant? I.e., I can use the defendant to exclude
someone from being judge without any reason.)

> Proposal 166/1:Judicial reform 2
YES

> Proposal 167/0:Judicial Reform 3 or crime and punishment
NO

> Proposal 168/0:Fix the rules
YES

> Proposal 169/1:Taking a vow of non-silence
NO

> Proposal 170/0:Global Positioning System
NO

> Proposal 171/1:The Paradox Prevention Proposal
NO

> Proposal 172/0:Just to avoid confusion...
YES

> Proposal 174/0:Party like it's 2002
YES

> Proposal 175/0:Ain't ain't a word
YES

> Proposal 176/0:Paper Trail
YES

> Proposal 177/0:Appeal Clause
NO
(Nice idea, but no details on how voting takes place.)

> Proposal 178/0:Bandwidth Rationing
YES

> Proposal 179/1:You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just
>                'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
YES

> Proposal 180/1:Define the Game State
NO

> Proposal 181/0:Apathy Clause
YES

> Proposal 182/0:let's make it Imperial
NO

> Proposal 183/1:To abstain is an explicit way of *not* voting
YES

> Proposal 184/0:Reform Dimensions
NO
(Please, don't put everything into a single rule. This just makes it
harder to have more than one proposal at a time to modify something in
that rule.)

> Proposal 185/1:The Cursed Sushi of Babel
I don't vote on this issue.

> Proposal 186/0:Charmed, I'm sure
NO
(What's wrong about non-procedural algorithms? Never programmed in
Prolog yet? ;-))

> Proposal 187/0:Clean-up Kickback Clause
NO

> Proposal 188/0:Currency
NO

> Proposal 189/0:Proposal Awards
NO

> Proposal 190/0:Sharing The Wealth
NO

> Proposal 191/1:Victory by Monopoly
NO

> Proposal 192/0:Start at the beginning
NO
(Append that to rule 153. See also my comment on P184/0 above.)

> Proposal 193/0:I Can't See the Clock
YES

> Proposal 194/0:I Can't See My Watch Either
YES

> Proposal 195/1:The Many
NO

> Proposal 196/0:Elimination of Boilerplate
NO

> Proposal 197/0:Standard Delimiters
NO
(I'd rather introduce something that can be (machine-)read without
ambiguity as to whether a proposal or a rule is delimited.)

> Proposal 198/0:Spur Clause
NO


Joerg