On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> For all e knows, either
> or both of these may have changed via private messages since that
> time. E may make an educated guess that they haven't, but Rule
> 2173 does not prohibit em from disclosing such a guess.
If
Goethe wrote:
I call for judgement on the following criminal case:
Goethe, while holding the office of Notary, did breach the
terms of eir office contained in Rule 2173 by identifying
the membership of the private contract known as the AFO
without the consent of its members or as allow
On 10/31/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> > Actually, I'm not even sure if either of the deputisations will work. The
> > CotC isn't obligated to assign cases to me (just to someone), and
> > deputisation isn't clear on whether I can deputise with an argument (if
> > not t
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Again, under our current system a broken office can only be fixed by
>proposal, so what's the difference?
How do we break an office, exactly? Under the current system an
officeholder who is a partnership can become broken by contractual means,
but can then be readily replaced
On 11/6/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This notice resolves the Agoran Decision for the holder of the Notary office.
>
> Votes:
> ROOT: Zefram, OscarMeyr, Fookiemyartug*
> GOETHE: Goethe, Murphy, AFO, root, Fookiemyartug*
>
> * Fookiemyartug voted for both root and Goethe, but their
On 11/6/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, under our current system a broken office can only be fixed by
> proposal, so what's the difference? Quite true on the constitutional
> issue though. Let me come up with a fix.
Under the current system, a working office can only be broken
On 11/6/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your model contract would impose that sort of practical overhead for
> any routine official action that is not by the Chair.
And how is that different than the current system? My model contract
allows whoever the previous officer was to still have fu
On 11/6/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >Why does it need to be in that paragraph?
>
> Interaction of terminology. "unqualified" should be defined with
> "qualified", at least.
I still don't follow. R1868 already uses "unqualified" without a
local definition.
> >the o
Roger Hicks wrote:
>The only real exception is to allow Offices to remain partnerships
>even if their basis is less than 2 people.
Installing by Agoran Consent.
> And I don't see how this is
>any more difficult than deputizing?
Your model contract would
On 11/6/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> > Each Office
> >is filled (held) by a single Partnership whose name is the same as
> >that Office.
>
> Eurgh. This really doesn't fit together, as evidenced by the except
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Therefore, "Promotor" successfully and inarguably identifies
>Zefram in the same narrow context that "Beverly" specified root in
>CFJ 1361.
After I posted my comments regarding your proto-judgement, I also
remembered the precedent of CFJ 712. I don't have the full case record,
Roger Hicks wrote:
> Each Office
>is filled (held) by a single Partnership whose name is the same as
>that Office.
Eurgh. This really doesn't fit together, as evidenced by the exceptions
you have to make to partnership rules. It makes all
A simple self-ratifying clause would fix that.
On 11/6/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's a problem here which I forgot to mention: fatigue isn't
> self-correcting, which posture presently is. An incorrect fatigue value
> stays incorrect indefinitely. Discovery of an old error has e
Zefram wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>> In balance, it better serves the game to require rigid specifications
>> of individuals,
>
> I think it would take a rule amendment to do this.
I'll quibble and I'll say I disagree here: the rules say in many places
that things must be specified, but it is game cu
Proto-Proposal: Offices as Partnerships
AI: 2
{
Amend R1006 Offices to read:
{{
A role is an Office only if it is so defined by the rules. Each Office
is filled (held) by a single Partnership whose name is the same as
that Office. Said Partnership is the Officer of that Office and may be
referred t
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Why does it need to be in that paragraph?
Interaction of terminology. "unqualified" should be defined with
"qualified", at least.
>the only operations to be performed on the set are sorting and
>incrementing.
There's a problem here which I forgot to mention: fatigue isn't
self
On 11/6/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> > A player is well qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial
> > case if and only if e is neither unqualified nor poorly
> > qualified to be assigned as its judge.
>
> This needs to be merged into the "Except wh
Ian Kelly wrote:
> A player is well qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial
> case if and only if e is neither unqualified nor poorly
> qualified to be assigned as its judge.
This needs to be merged into the "Except where modified ..." paragraph,
which uses the term "qualifi
18 matches
Mail list logo
