Ian Kelly wrote:
>I hereby make the following agreement under R1742, heavily based on
>the Pineapple Partnership.
What's your theory by which you can make a R1742 agreement with only
one player?
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I interpret a partnership's identity, not merely as the set of its
>members, but as the agreement defining that set.
What is your legal theory by which a partnership is a person, in that
case? The theory that I've used is based on the partnership's rights
and obligations devolvi
On 5/21/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In any case, it's too meta for me, and *I'm* a mathematician.
I'm surprised. It's clearly a case of the box that attempts to contain
itself. Maybe you need more applied in your math.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there'
Ambiguous eligibility can be resolved by making the relevant players
turned (lying down) without 2 objections, and/or inactive without
objection. (This does nothing for the bug pointed out by "fix
judicial turns", though.)
comex wrote:
I assign CFJs 1666-8 to The Hanging Judge. E is still turned.
Text at:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-May/006418.html
I encourage Zefram and Murphy to submit psuedojudgements.
I interpret a partnership's identity, not merely as the set of
Zefram wrote:
That's all the yin/yang activity we have planned. For the record,
all changes of membership of both partnerships have taken place in the
public forum. The present membership is:
* of Yin Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp
* of Yang Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp
Or at least, that's the memb
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
(If either #2 or #3 is judged true, and HP3 through HP14 are players,
then by CFJ 1652 they were eligible voters on Proposals 4958-69, which
thus failed quorum. Naturally, the attempt to legislate #1 is part of
the affected batch, specifically Proposal 4964.)
I
On 5/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
R955 curiously does not simply describe a mathematical recipe
Why is it curious? pythonomic and other formal nomics are that way -->
-- _
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) _/ \_/| <- TOWNSVILLE
To read this signa
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I call for judgement on the following linked statements:
>
> 1) Quorum for a proposal is based on the number of eligible
> voters at the start of the voting period.
>
> 2) Quorum for a proposal is based on the number of eligible
> voters at the end of the
comex wrote:
>I submit the following set of linked CFJs (largely redundant to each other and
>to previous CFJs):
I think they're entirely redundant with prior CFJs, except for the
question of what the name "Yin Corp" actually refers to now. Initially it
referred to a partnership of Zefram and Qu
I don't see what enjoyment y'all get out of making stacks of puppets.
I know that the puppets vary slightly, but I fail to see the interest
in any of this.
In any case, it's too meta for me, and *I'm* a mathematician.
Your pal,
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
I blame these homology functors f
comex wrote:
>Actually, I realize this opens another option: a new player was not turned at
>the time, and so is certainly eligible.
Not trivially so. I'm not sure that the turnedness of a non-player
is clear. But I'll go with that plan.
Don't assign anything to Yin Corp or Yang Corp. Their i
On Monday 21 May 2007 8:00 pm, comex wrote:
> ineligibility depends on
> having been turned at the time the CFJ was called.
Actually, I realize this opens another option: a new player was not turned at
the time, and so is certainly eligible. Therefore, a new player (a
partnership that delegated
comex wrote:
>1. No matter what passed or didn't pass, as long as some players
>announce that they become sitting down
We definitely don't have the concept of "sitting" at the moment, and
until voting results on P4965 are published. At that point we acquire
the concept if the proposal passed and
comex wrote:
>> 4977 D 1.1 BobTHJ Formalize Partnerships
>FOR (does well without excess verbiage)
I think it does really badly by not saying enough on many issues,
and badly again by saying too much on the issues it does cover.
The corporate-style model of identity that it legislates bring
On 5/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
comex, what do you make of the present CFJ situation?
There are three ways to resolve it that I can see:
1. No matter what passed or didn't pass, as long as some players
announce that they become sitting down I can publish a Notice of
Rotation (whi
Ed Murphy wrote:
>(If either #2 or #3 is judged true, and HP3 through HP14 are players,
>then by CFJ 1652 they were eligible voters on Proposals 4958-69, which
>thus failed quorum. Naturally, the attempt to legislate #1 is part of
>the affected batch, specifically Proposal 4964.)
I think we're cl
I've put my listings of currently active proposals up on the web:
http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/current_prop_pool.txt
http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/current_prop_decisions.txt
I'll keep updating these as I process new proposal submissions and so on.
Regarding historical proposals, I have
Zefram wrote:
You use the term "Speakership" in several places where strictly you
should say "Speaker". ("Speakership" is not defined; in your terminology
"Speaker" refers to the office.) You also speak of a player *being*
the Speaker, where you should apply the strict distinction that a playe
Maud wrote:
> Third, I'd like to know the historical reasons for why the Speaker's
> veto doesn't just kill the proposal.
You were on my side with this one, Maud. Veto used to "abort" proposals,
but then we discovered that abortion was broken (CFJs 1549-1553) in a way
that made any sort of votin
Michael Slone wrote:
>In this proto, I sneak a bit of executorship into the rules. Now
>offices have duties which devolve upon their holders.
OK, reasonable approach. That means that an office can have Timing
Orders aimed at it even if it is vacant.
You use the term "Speakership" in several pla
Michael Slone wrote:
>I really don't understand why people are afraid of the tiniest bit
>of redundancy in the rules. Where we have irredundancy, it will
>come back to haunt us.
It's about maintainability. The "one less" provision is only correct
while natural players have their voting limits se
On 5/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
These two don't work together. (d) only makes sense if you're applying
these conditions at (or after) the end of the voting period. (e) needs
to be applied at the time the vote is cast.
I was hoping people wouldn't notice that they lose *all* thei
On 5/21/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A couple years back I floated something similar, Steve's comment was
"how do we keep our proposal numbering system straight, it's a
substantial historical series." Not that it's a bad idea, but
it's worth pondering. I think the formal distribu
Michael Slone wrote:
> The default time limit for a collective action is
>
> (a) fourteen days, if the action is not the adoption of a
> proposal; or
>
> (b) forever and a day, if the action is the adoption of a
> proposal.
Suggest that you make (a) be the default, and
25 matches
Mail list logo
