DIS: Re: BUS: deregister

2007-10-01 Thread Benjamin Schultz
On Sep 30, 2007, at 7:57 PM, comex wrote: I submit the following proposal, at power=3: Repeal rule 1482. What for? And what does this have to do with Wooble? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report

2007-10-01 Thread Benjamin Schultz
On Sep 30, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: On 9/30/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I believe "< 23 Jan 96 - 24 Sep 07" would be most accurate. I think the 15 July 2000 - 24 Sep 2007 registration is ALSO correct, due to the Annabel project (scam? goof?). How is that? Ann

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract: Agoran Credit Union

2007-10-01 Thread Ian Kelly
On 10/1/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about: make kopeks zero-sum. Then kopeks can't be a currency. But that might not be so bad. -root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract: Agoran Credit Union

2007-10-01 Thread Zefram
How about: make kopeks zero-sum. Kopeks represent credits and debts, not absolute wealth. You can transfer kopeks away from yourself as long as your kopek total stays above some negative limit (your credit limit) which depends (probably linearly) on the number of VCs you have. Members with a neg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract: Agoran Credit Union

2007-10-01 Thread Ian Kelly
On 10/1/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Suppose the following system instead: Whenever a new member joins for > the first time, e receives credit for the VCs e had at that time. > Whenever a former member joins, e receives credit for the credit e had > when e left, adjusted for any VC g

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract: Agoran Credit Union

2007-10-01 Thread Ian Kelly
On 9/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 5) Each kopeck has exactly one color. Each color of kopeck is a > currency. Ownership of kopecks is restricted to members. The > Bankor is the recordkeepor of kopecks. > > 6) As soon as possible after a member requests credit, the Bankor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Four more CFJs

2007-10-01 Thread Ian Kelly
On 10/1/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A better way to uphold viii. > is to give every person the right to leave a binding agreement, or if > you *really* want to preserve the spirit, make non-players ineligible > to be parties to agreements, but again, that seems somewhat > backwards... I

DIS: Re: BUS: Four more CFJs

2007-10-01 Thread comex
On 9/30/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > root points out that this violates the spirit of Rule 101 (viii), but > I believe it fails to violate the letter. I suggest amending Rules > 101 and 1504 to clarify that the rules cannot directly impose > obligations on non-players, but can genera