Re: [s-d] [s-b] Continued voting and a new emergency

Sean Hunt on Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:20:31 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Continued voting and a new emergency

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Continued voting and a new emergency
From: Sean Hunt <rideau3@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:14:44 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zAp8ibwtjXJgKWU3HdpYDJs/fj0M47K10L33WlnS24A=; b=CovZTtWz7ZZg7Gw9Ywuxx7JIr9ZNWg+ldSzZkWrEn+fc/OZtcaW4uxvF5A7uXHtM2t EaQ+Gfg4+K+dqlL38N4Ggp26KSKitTHhpZJnXt/jOnZ1JaIdlPmD7m6MCMURwGVDXlq7 TtdcU2XmzPV5PmXUHB+AyLgj2bz1Cqq6tlB8k=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ibHSb9TIncWez3hNqDBzC1+ueQX/pSKXszqgESl/tlROatAcFHA/BpVlw0nSS6h9mJ hZwV1hNc39+P1YzGAOtlkO5s1YKt8Tdw8exlruSVHN9KPzOW+wXis5R81NClJTJ7+FfP YRJ8WfnJ9bVmWakRpgAORRKXDSrVIR0o+vxo0=
In-reply-to: <4B9C45D3.80303@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <SNT109-W57D6CE09818A19092493D185300@xxxxxxx> , <24B469E2-83E6-4D27-BBDB-45C2FBA7130F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <SNT109-W6362B4F26283035EDFFB7E85300@xxxxxxx> <1268522924.3123.72.camel@desert> <4B9C45D3.80303@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7pre) Gecko/20091209 Shredder/3.0.1pre

On 03/13/2010 07:11 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:

On 03/13/2010 04:28 PM, Alex Smith wrote:

If emergencies aren't broken, they aren't broken and we can fix the game
with one. If they are, then the previous emergency failed due to making
B not a nomic (? this might need checking, how did precedence work
then?)


Yeah, Rule 31 would have stepped in at some point, but only on the rules
required to make B a nomic. I'll sort through it after dinner.

-coppro

Actually, no. As long as Rule 123 existed, Rule 31 would be unable tokick in. By the time Rule 123 was to be repealed, Rule 31 was alreadyrepealed and so the Refresh Proposal succeeded in full.


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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Continued voting and a new emergency
  - From: 0x44

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Continued voting and a new emergency
  - From: James Baxter
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Continued voting and a new emergency
  - From: Alex Smith
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Continued voting and a new emergency
  - From: Sean Hunt

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Continued voting and a new emergency
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Continued voting and a new emergency
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Continued voting and a new emergency
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Continued voting and a new emergency
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread