Re: [s-b] [s-d] At 00:01 UTC, I publish the following ballot and turn the clock on:

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hmmmm true that was discuss. Altho I am convinced I sent it some time around
7:45 e.g. 18 minutes before that time. Or maybe that's when I STARTED....
Anyway:

At 00:03 UTC on July 26th, 2008, I Vote as follows:

>
> 469 (Remove): {{AGAINST}} [[I like the second part only.]]
> 470 (Untitled Proposal (by MCTMike)): {{AGAINST}} [[cause I know I'll get
> caught!]]
>  471 (Registration Reform): {{FOR}}: [[Because it fixes the bonus exploit,
> even though having no mechanism to reject new players based on suspected
> non-distinct personhood, other than resorting to consultations after a new
> player is already a player and has potentially already posed actions
> (quantum states, anyone?) sounds emergency-licious.]]
>  472 (Beat Inflation): {{FOR}} [[feed the poor. eat the rich.]]
>  473 (this isn't Neopets): {{FOR}} [[even though I sort of wish this were
> neopets.]]
>  474 (Field Matches Without The Field): {{FOR}}
>  475 (MinCorps): {{FOR}}
>  476 (No More Nth Round Ballots): {{FOR}} [[even tho the incrementation bit
> is a bit confusing.]]
>  477 (Simplify Scoring): {{FOR}} [[Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I just got that
> removing the "if the proposal was ever won" bit means that we should in the
> recent past have been getting 2 points per FOR vote on each proposal that
> was passed. I remember this is how it used to work. Haven't we been getting
> a single point per vote for recently?]]
>  478 (Untitled Proposal (by Charles)): {{FOR}}
>

Billy Pilgrim
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business