On 7/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> TIASCOTC"ISIDTID"FTHPAFAVLT.
^ ?
Sorry, I thought everyone would know by now.
*ahem* "This is a straightforward case of the common "I say I do,
therefore I do" fallacy that has plagued Agora for a very long time."
-root
Zefram wrote:
> It is, of course, true that because the Primo charter is a binding
> agreement governed by Agoran law the rules of Agora could modify it
> arbitrarily.
I am not finding anything that allows this under the current ruleset,
and arguably R101(v) actually prevents it, especially as ag
root wrote:
On 7/17/07, Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On behalf of Agora I hereby repeal all rules, regulations, terms and
any and all other parts of the Primo Coporation and its charter. The
Primo Coporation no longer exists.
...
As Primo unconditionally allows Agora permission to chang
On 7/17/07, Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On behalf of Agora I hereby repeal all rules, regulations, terms and
any and all other parts of the Primo Coporation and its charter. The
Primo Coporation no longer exists.
...
As Primo unconditionally allows Agora permission to change its charter
BobTHJ wrote:
> An Agoran Proposal has the ability to change any game document
> (at present) of which the Primo Corp charter is one.
But agreements, as "game documents", have special status. Agoran
Rules are a sub-class of agreement, not the other way around. Of
particular interest here is R1
On 7/17/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Saying it doesn't make it so. Primo's charter doesn't define any way to
determine that Agora wishes to change the charter, and so can't implement
changing the charter at Agora's behest. Of course, Agoran rules can
modify the Primo charter by virtue
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Quoting from Section 1 of the charter:
Saying it doesn't make it so. Primo's charter doesn't define any way to
determine that Agora wishes to change the charter, and so can't implement
changing the charter at Agora's behest. Of course, Agoran rules can
modify the Primo charte
On 7/17/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
>You will find the correct verbiage in Section #1.
However, it doesn't actually specify a mechanism by which Agora can make
changes to its ruleset, so I think it's not actually allowing Agora to
make changes, the statement in secti
Roger Hicks wrote:
>You will find the correct verbiage in Section #1.
However, it doesn't actually specify a mechanism by which Agora can make
changes to its ruleset, so I think it's not actually allowing Agora to
make changes, the statement in section 1 notwithstanding. I don't think
it ever qua
On 7/17/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As required by Rule 2148/0, I have reviewed Primo Corporation and find
that it does not currently meet the requirements of a Protectorate, if
it ever did so. Specifically, it does not "specify in its ruleset
that it submits to Agora as its be
On 7/17/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The substance is in fact that of proposal 5050, which was voted down.
>
> F/A was 4/2, and one of those 2 was me. (I think I misunderstood
> the proposal's effect at the time.)
I was the other
On 7/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The substance is in fact that of proposal 5050, which was voted down.
F/A was 4/2, and one of those 2 was me. (I think I misunderstood
the proposal's effect at the time.)
I was the other vote against, and the only reason I voted against was
b
On 7/17/07, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
---
LIST OF PROTECTORATES
---
None
Primo Corp is a protectorate. Also, both B Nomic and Gunner Nomic 2.0
have become and then ceased to be Protectorates in the past month.
Bob
Peekee wrote:
>What about all the devolved governments?
They are unicameral, and use geographical constituencies, like the Commons.
-zefram
Quoting Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I considered basing the renaming on Parliament, but I don't know
how the houses' votes are weighted;
In the House of Commons each member represents a constituency, which has
sane geographical boundaries and represents an approximately equal
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I considered basing the renaming on Parliament, but I don't know
>how the houses' votes are weighted;
In the House of Commons each member represents a constituency, which has
sane geographical boundaries and represents an approximately equal number
of people. The constituency bo
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Mostly just renaming things for flavor, but there is a
bit of substance.]
I dislike most of the renaming.
Meh. I dislike abstract names. (In the first draft of the Card
rules, everything operated directly on "pending draws"; it was
later amende
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Mostly just renaming things for flavor, but there is a
>bit of substance.]
I dislike most of the renaming. The substance is in fact that of proposal
5050, which was voted down. Please develop some new mechanics if you
want to use the population concept.
-zefram
18 matches
Mail list logo
