bd on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:45:46 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[s-b] Votes

I vote as follows:

0061 YES
0062 NO [[ should be nweek ]]
0063 YES
0064 YES
0065 YES [[ hmm... it'd be interesting to have variable exchange rates 
between difference currencies based on supply and demand... ]]
0066 YES
0067 YES

[[ I wasn't paying too much attention to the list the past week or so... 
that said, why require non-unique devices to have a fixed number? ]]

I propose:
{{ __The more variables the better__
If proposal 0067 did not pass, this proposal has no effect.

Amend the rule "devices", removing the text:
When a non-unique device is defined, the definition must state how many 
such devices exist.

0068 YES
0070 NO [[ the rules hard-code the owner of Crazy Eddie's Initial Stock. 
Instead, they should define the effects of these objects, and the 
proposal should create some - and/or the rules should specify how they 
are to be created.

I'd like to see portable black holes that can destroy unique items too. 
Simply make sure the unique items have an appropriate rule to respawn 
them. Perhaps Devices should destroy themselves by default when used?
0071 NO [[ what? ]]
0072 ABSTAIN [[ I don't understand how one is supposed to take 
possession of this. ]]
0073 YES

There are two proposals in Proposals/0074 in the wiki. If these are in 
fact two seperate proposals, then p(n) is defined to be n + 1. 
Otherwise, p(n) is defined to be n.

0074 NO [[ turtles all the way down... Only certain kinds of objects 
should be able to possess points. ]]
if p(0074) != 0074, I vote NO on p(0074)

p(0075) NO [[ Let's take it slow for now. If/when things are automated, 
maybe this will be acceptable ]]
p(0076) YES
p(0077) ABSTAIN [[ Condorcet is better... though it probably won't matter ]]
p(0078) YES.
p(0079) ABSTAIN [[ Unbalanced quotes. Probably doesn't matter too much. ]]
p(0080) YES
p(0081) YES

spoon-business mailing list