On 7/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Taral wrote:
>>5079 Oi 1Murphy Disambiguate CotC
>AGAINST
Why?
Why not?
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Taral wrote:
>>5079 Oi 1Murphy Disambiguate CotC
>AGAINST
Why?
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Unfortunately, we don't currently have a way to change or retract
>votes.
R683/13(d) invalidates any retracted ballot, so go ahead.
>The proposal could be re-democratized by having somebody else
>vote 5 times AGAINST to cancel my 5 extra votes FOR, but that would
>just i
root wrote:
> What's more, a reversal of CFJ 1682 would be both useful and supported
> by game custom, as evidenced by this announcement (as well as other
> similar historical agreements) made by Goethe on April 6, 2005:
>
>> I agree, as per the rules of agora, to not check out
>> more cards from
Here's a possible refinement of 3TE.
proto-proposal: limited VC market
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2126 by appending to the list of ways that VCs may be spent
e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another
player gain one VC of that color.
[If someone only earns VCs in
On 7/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hereby call for judgement, barring root, comex, and BobTHJ, on the
statement: to qualify as a member of a partnership one must be responsible
for all of the partnership's obligations. Argument:
Legal partnerships in most jurisdictions make all par
Ian Kelly wrote:
>I consent and support this.
I don't think HP2's actually made the announcement of intent for that.
I interpret the message as Murphy giving advance warning that HP2 will
probably make those announcements of intent.
-zefram
Proto revised slightly in response to Murphy's comments and recent
proposals.
proto-proposal: judicial reform
AI: 2
{{{
Whereas Agora has since 1996 laboured under an unnecessarily complex,
unclear, poorly-specified, bug-ridden judicial system, and wishes to
replace this with a system designed i
Peekee wrote:
> Why should
>(theoretically, not in terms of current rules) every member be
>responsible for everything?
That's the way a legal partnership usually works. Of course members
of a partnership divide up responsibilities internally, but
Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Peekee wrote:
The partnership would have devolved all of its obligation.
Obligations are only devolved onto parties of the agreement.
The parties onto which the obligations are devolved number at least two.
Hmm. You might have found a bug there, it depends
Peekee wrote:
>The partnership would have devolved all of its obligation.
>Obligations are only devolved onto parties of the agreement.
>The parties onto which the obligations are devolved number at least two.
Hmm. You might have found a bug there, it depends on how "collectively"
is interpreted.
Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Peekee wrote:
Does it need to pass all of its obligations onto all of its members?
Yes, that's how "member" is defined.
-zefram
A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its
legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, num
Peekee wrote:
>Does it need to pass all of its obligations onto all of its members?
Yes, that's how "member" is defined.
-zefram
Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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 me
I hereby vote:
>5075 Oi 1Zefram MMIify truthfulness
FOR*10
>5076 Di 3Murphy Three-Tone Economics
FOR
>5077 Di 2Murphy MMI in practice
FOR
>5078 Di 3Zefram refactor voting limits
FOR
-zefram
15 matches
Mail list logo
