Re: [s-b] Voting FOR 2 'officer' motions

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

OK, I resolve the motion to make us officials. (but don't worry, it has
succeeded already so you were in office to give yourself the mack) I will
resolve the motion "Limit Officers" at 00:00:01 tomorrow (August 26), and I
will resolve the quoted motion, "Fix Paragraph 3 Bug" at 00:00:01 August 28.
That should take care of everything.

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> I vote FOR this Motion. Don't forget to resolve it! (and all the other
> motions)
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 2:01 AM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Perfect. That's just what was needed. Everything has been resolved,
> almost.
> > (see below)
> >
> > I just noticed a little mistake I made in that paragraph 3 addition.
> Those
> > automatically passed motions are not necessarily resolved, and so they
> may
> > become failed after 6 rdays still. I post, and vote FOR on, the following
> > Motion for the Articles of Incorporation of Black Corporation:
> >
> > { Title: Fix Paragraph 3 Bug
> >
> > Amend paragraph 3 to read (changed text in *bold*): 3. Any Voting
> > Sockholder
> > may attempt to amend this contract by posting a Motion by announcement.
> The
> > Motion is a Game Document and should specify a list of Contract Actions.
> > Each Voting Sockholder may cast a single vote FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN on
> > this contract's Motions. After two full rdays, the Voting Sockholder who
> > initiated the Motion may resolve that Motion. If a Motion is not resolved
> > in
> > six full rdays after it is announced it automatically fails. When a
> Motion
> > is resolved if the total number of FOR votes is greater than the number
> of
> > AGAINST votes the changes described in the Motion are enacted. If at any
> > time all Voting Sockholders have voted FOR a Motion, and it has not
> failed,
> > it *is automatically resolved*.
> > }
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Jamie Dallaire
> > <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> >
> > > I'm a little fuzzy about precisely what has occured with Black
> > Corporation
> > > motions and my attempt to pay myself for the socks... Especially since
> I
> > > don't think, concerning that attempt, that we can just "call it a
> > > motion"...
> > > so, since I am now the Chamberlain, I do the following which should
> make
> > it
> > > moot:
> > >
> > > I vote FOR all motions in the Black Corporation.
> > >
> > > BEGIN TRANSACTION
> > > Assertion: Black Corporation has not transferred any macks to Billy
> > Pilgrim
> > > within the past 6 rdays.
> > > Action: As Chamberlain, acting on behalf of the Black Corporation, I
> > > transfer (that is, the Black Corporation transfers) m200 to Billy
> > Pilgrim.
> > > END TRANSACTION
> > >
> > > Billy Pilgrim
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I vote FOR my motion to install the two of us to office. It
> > automatically
> > > > passes.
> > > > I vote FOR my motion "Limit Officers." Now you vote for it.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >  -Tyler
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > spoon-business mailing list
> > > > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > spoon-business mailing list
> > > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >   -Tyler
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-business mailing list
> > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> >
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>



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