Re: [s-d] [s-b] This game is boring, let's have an Emergency.

[Gabriel Vistica <gvistica@xxxxxxxxx>]

Then how did my usurpation attempt get stopped by just one objector?



----- Original Message ----
> From: 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 1:02:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b]   This game is boring, let's have an Emergency.
> 
> No it isn't, N Consent of B defaults to 1. So the ratio of objections to 
>support  has to be greater than or equal to one.
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 9, 2010, at 9:46  PM, Gabriel Vistica wrote:
> 
> > Not problematic at all. In times of  ambiguity, you would just Declare an 
> > Emergency. Anyone who was a Player  at the last time of non-ambiguity would 
>be 
>
> > eligible to vote in the  Emergency. However, even if your status is ambiguous 
>
> > now, the  Registrar's Report from Nweek 181 was published more than 14 days 
>ago 
>
> >  and is now considered fact, per Rule 45, and you weren't on it. Since you 
> > haven't been a Player at any time since then, you were most definitely  NOT a 
>
> > Player at the last point of non-ambiguity (whenever it was), and  you 
>therefore 
>
> > can't vote in an Emergency.
> > 
> > Also, since  Marr965 objected to the initiation of an Emergency, and an 
>Emergency 
>
> >  requires "Consent of B", not "N Consent of B", his objection is sufficient 
>to 
>
> > cancel the Declaration of an Emergency.
> > And before anyone CFIs  on that, I draw your attention to the time that I 
>tried 
>
> > to usurp a  ministry (another "Consent of B" dependent action) and one 
>objection 
>
> >  was sufficient to stop me from usurping the ministry. 
> >  
>http://lists.ellipsis.cx/archives/spoon-business/spoon-business-201008/msg00050.html
>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message  ----
> >> From: Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> >>  Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 9:47:52 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] This  game is boring, let's have an Emergency.
> >> 
> >> On Thu,  2010-12-09 at 09:22 -0800, Gabriel Vistica wrote:
> >>> I cannot   recognize this CFI, as the entity known as "ais523" deregistered 
>on 
>
> >> 
> >>> August 6, 2010 at approximately 1605 UTC and is therefore no  longer a  
> >> Player.
> >>> Original message: 
> >>> 
> >>  
>http://lists.ellipsis.cx/archives/spoon-business/spoon-business-201008/msg00024.html
>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Hmm, deregistered players can't CFI any more? That  seems a little
> >> problematic in  times of ambiguity.
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> ais523
> >> 
> >> 
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >> spoon-discuss   mailing list
> >> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> >>  http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  _______________________________________________
> > spoon-business mailing  list
> > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> >  http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss  mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> 


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