Peter Cooper Jr. on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:27:08 -0500 (CDT) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[s-d] Re: [auto] EugeneMeidinger votes |
automailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: > Motion 163/2: Eugene easily erodes evil errors; Eventually even eradicating emself. Enigmatic, eh? : For > I'm curious as to why peter is against this. Mainly, the rule 3-9 change. While I'm okay with putting the burden on the proposer to specify that their prop is in one of those forms, this wording doesn't make it clear that the bonuses don't happen otherwise, or put a time limit on claiming the bonus. That, and I'm inclined to vote AGAINST in the lack of a strong opinion either way, just so that I have less changes to make at the end of the nweek. And I haven't really thought through the consequences of all the props yet (and may not get time to before the end of the nweek). I may change my mind later. If it's a good enough prop, my voting AGAINST it won't stop it from passing. -- Peter C. "Never eat more than you can lift." -- Miss Piggy _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss