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

[James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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. 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
New Windows 7: Simplify what you do everyday. Find the right PC for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/buy/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss