Proto-Proposal: Expanded foreign relations
Er. I think I originally intended the second one to be some
sort of economic trade proto (with strong pragmatic safeguards
against allowing an ambiguous foreign gamestate to infect ours).
pikhq wrote:
I submit the following proposal, named "Non-reporting Office":
Create a rule with the following text:
{
There exists an office of Governmental Waste. This office shall have no
duties, shall make no reports, and shall exist as the sole result of
governmental waste.
}
[ I want to s
On Wednesday 21 November 2007, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> I thought someone else brought that up... "urgency" is not in the
> units of "days."
>
>(f) The vote collector of such a decision CANNOT resolve it if
>it was initiated more than fourteen days ago, or less than
>
On Nov 21, 2007, at 10:16 PM, comex wrote:
On Wednesday 21 November 2007, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
5311: AGAINST (units mismatch)
?
I thought someone else brought that up... "urgency" is not in the
units of "days."
(f) The vote collector of such a decision CANNOT resolve it if
I am inclined to concur with Goethe's arguments as Appellant. Trial
Judge Goddess Eris's arguments do nothing to address the case, so on
first brush I want to reassign the case. I'm interested in what my
fellow Judges on the appeal panel have to say.
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
On Wednesday 21 November 2007, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> 5311: AGAINST (units mismatch)
?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
> A member of an existing public contract CAN make the contract
> into a Contest, with emself as the sole contestmaster, without 3
> objections, provided no part of that contestmaster's basis is
> currently a contestmaster.
This doesn't prevent a partnership from being the
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> I agree that I screwed that up, so I'm not making any arguments. . . My only
> one, that support could be used as consent, is obviously not upheld, and it's
> not worth trying to get it upheld. Besides, I can just hope for consent and
> do it right th
On Wednesday 21 November 2007 12:05:30 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > As a concurring opinion, I note that pikhq did not wait the requisite
> > 96 hours before attempting to resolve the decision, so this would have
> > been FALSE even if e had correctly specified
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> As a concurring opinion, I note that pikhq did not wait the requisite
> 96 hours before attempting to resolve the decision, so this would have
> been FALSE even if e had correctly specified the method of dependent
> action.
Agreed (thx for reminder, I was g
10 matches
Mail list logo
