[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to
With "speaker as an office" having been adopted, this text has changed.
-zefram
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Would it fix things to make it an entity switch (but still only allow
>persons to register)?
Yes, I think so.
-zefram
root wrote:
> Now that the matter no longer has any bearing on Partnerships thanks
> to the new, improved Rule 2145, I would like to reiterate my appeal of
> CFJ 1682 in the hopes of garnering more support. I still find fault
> in the logic of the Judge's arguments, and it seemed at the time that
root wrote:
> On a somewhat related note, are the various partnerships aware that if
> CFJ 1684 is sustained, they will not have been considered persons
> until the adoption of R2145 and will need to have registered
> subsequent to that event to be considered players?
Acutely. Five months worth
Zefram wrote:
>> Amend Rule 2126 (Voting Credits) by removing "ordinary".
>
> Which instance of it?
Whoops, there is indeed more than one. Will fix later.
Zefram wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Citizenship is a person switch with values Null (default) and
>> Registered, tracked by the Registrar. A player is a person
>> whose citizenship is Registered.
>
> So an entity that is a person and then ceases to be a person immediately
>
On 7/10/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/10/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So is Primo just ignoring the decision of CFJ 1659 or what?
I believe so. Wasn't this amended shortly thereafter to fix the problem?
Yes and no. After P5038, the rules definition of "by annou
On 7/10/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So is Primo just ignoring the decision of CFJ 1659 or what?
I believe so. Wasn't this amended shortly thereafter to fix the problem?
BobTHJ
On 7/10/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was away for a week, then back, then away again this week. Primo
Issue #23 assigns CFJ 1688 to Murphy to answer on behalf of Primo, and
CFJ 1694 to myself to answer on behalf of Primo. The slowness has been
due to the lack of a VPSA report summ
There's more to it than that. Primo's cases were assigned almost two
weeks ago; judgements were already overdue before the start of this week.
-zefram
I was away for a week, then back, then away again this week. Primo
Issue #23 assigns CFJ 1688 to Murphy to answer on behalf of Primo, and
CFJ
On 7/10/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As Primo Corporation is not judging its assigned cases, I intend to
change it to lying down, without 2 objections. (I'll be able to do
that under the fifth paragraph of rule 1871/11 if I'm CotC at the time,
which seems a likely turn of events.)
-zef
In the appeal of CFJ 1651, I judge REASSIGN
BobTHJ
On 7/10/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the appeal of CFJ 1651, I judge REASSIGN.
Wooble
On 7/9/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 08 July 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Primo Corporation is overdue to judge CFJ 1688 and CFJ 1694. I
> therefore intend to make Primo Corporation inactive, without objection.
>
I also object.
I am away for the week, but I beleive a Primo issue has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[With the return of disinterested proposals, we can go back to rewarding
>non-ordinary interested proposals, yes?]
Hmm. There's still possible inducement to vote contrary to one's
conscience. There is no longer the incentive to vote AGAINST a good
proposal, if the propo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A player CAN ONLY perform a dependent action by announcement IF
> all of the following are true:
"CAN ONLY ... IF" means "CANNOT ... unless". You don't actually have
anything saying the a dependent action CAN be performed by announcement.
I suggest "CAN ... if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Citizenship is a person switch with values Null (default) and
> Registered, tracked by the Registrar. A player is a person
> whose citizenship is Registered.
So an entity that is a person and then ceases to be a person immediately
ceases to be a player, b
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>I believe BobTHJ is on vacation without net access for the entire
>week;
There's more to it than that. Primo's cases were assigned almost two
weeks ago; judgements were already overdue before the start of this week.
-zefram
"Really Generalize Dependent Actions" will need to be revised
if "refactor voting limits" is adopted. Will deal with it later.
I believe BobTHJ is on vacation without net access for the entire
week; he mentioned it somewhere at Nomicapolis, where he's our
Scorekeeper.
On 7/10/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
P.S. Why isn't Primo judging its cases, anyway?
On 7/10/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I object. I
P.S. Why isn't Primo judging its cases, anyway?
On 7/10/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I object. I intend, without 2 objections, to change Zefram to lying
down. I intend, without objection, to make Zefram inactive.
On 7/10/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As Primo Corporation is
Peekee wrote:
>What are the rules that specify that obligations of a Partnership must
>be devolved to ALL of its members/parties?
That's not required. The requirement is that the obligations be devolved
onto at least two parties, who are then known as the members.
>Rule 2145/1 (Power=1)
Out o
Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Peekee wrote:
3. The sole purpose of this Agreement is to create a Partnership
for the nomic Agora. The Parties of this Agreement are the Members of
the Partnership.
...
6. Peekee shall ensure that the Partnership satisfies all
obligations that it incur
22 matches
Mail list logo
