Re: [s-d] [s-b] [change] Ballot for nweek 161 - 31 Dec 2009.

[James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:21:27 -0600
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] [change] Ballot for nweek 161 - 31 Dec 2009.
> 
> 
> On Jan 1, 2010, at 8:34 AM, M P Darke wrote:
> 
> > I object to this ballot, as I submitted a proposal which has not been included in the ballot.
> 
> Publishing a ballot is not a dependent action and your proposal was not submitted in time to be included in this nweek's ballot, nor was it recognized by the Minister of Change. So your objection makes no difference.


If the objection was made to the public forum (which it wasn't) the all it would do is cause the platonic gamestate to take precedence, rather than accepting the minister's report as true according to Rule 45. The platonic gamestate does not include Marr965's proposal as it has not been recognised. The other proposals were ruled as being recognised by CFI 104 so they have been included in the ballot. 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss