Re: [s-b] [s-d] [change] Ballot for nweek 160 - 03 Nov 2009.

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:09 PM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:31:42 +0000
>> From: charles.w.walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] [change] Ballot for nweek 160 - 03 Nov 2009.
>>
>> 2009/11/4 Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:05 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Why do you think you're ineligible to vote for your own proposal?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Because e hasn't read the ruleset?
>>
>> Proto: Make knowing what the Rules are a SHALL. Although generally
>> this couldn't be enforced, we could prosecute when people provide us
>> with strong evidence that they haven't read the rules, such as in
>> Marr's case.
>
>
> This could be done as an extension of R81 - e can't provide adequate reason why e would believe that e is not eligible to vote on
> a particular  (the rules and actions of other voters contradict em) therefore e is making a false statement.

Per the above, I publish a Notice of Violation alleging that Marr965
violated rule 81/0 ("Truthiness," a power-1 rule) by publicly making a
false statement that e merely unreasonably believed to be true in eir
ballot for nweek 160.

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