On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Per Rule 869, I register as a player.
>
Welcome Sgeo. May your registration be uneventful (if that is what
you so desire).
Where'd you hear about agora?
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wish to make a proposal titled "Read the Ruleset Holiday", AI=1 II=2
>
> Add the following text to Rule 1750:
> Read the Ruleset Week is an Agoran Holiday.
>
There is no real reason for this to be a Holiday, as it will only lead
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I might be wrong, but don't reports traditionally go in OFF?
It is equally effective to send a report to agora-business as to
agora-official, and it's not conventional to send reports that aren't
directly required by the rules to
I might be wrong, but don't reports traditionally go in OFF?
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:20 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2032
>
> == CFJ 2032 ==
>
>The hypothetical contract in the evidence section, if made a
>contest, would
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:59 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, Agora, what would you pay for my votes?
Nothing, it seems; I've been offering all my votes for 1 VP for a
while and nobody's accepted. If that's a week of voting and I can't
get 1 VP for it, I might suppose it'll take you at
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Historian should be an office that Murphy has... or something of the
> sort, where E can gain more than just kudos for his weekly journals.
I should finish (which entails starting) that history proto I had.
Or just let someone e
Sgeo wrote:
> Do all rules that specify events to happen at a certain time have power
> <= 2? If not, than the Holidays rule (R1769) does not overrule it..
No, several Power=3 rules specify such events. Probably a case for
increasing R1769's Power to 3 as well.
Just take over the Promotor or Assessor (preferably both) to hinder
proposals, the IADoP to prevent new people from taking office, and the
CotC to assign certain cases to scamsters. The gang can publish an
"ultimatum" and threaten to EXILE anyone who opposes it for 14 days or
so (of course, the ult
I'm about to post a simple contract that will let anyone buy my votes
on anything without me actually having to remember to create Sell
Tickets. I would do this already, but I'm not sure...
What should the price be, to facilitate my earning as many VPs as possible?
1VP is, I think, too low, but
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
>> I initiate a criminal case against ehird, for violating Rule 2149 by
>> saying that e joins. In fact, as e knew, the statement was
>> ineffective (because e deregistered less than thirty
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> On Thursday 26 June 2008 8:30:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Oh hey, comex! Want to do a back-and-forth for trade for free to get us
>> both above the limit for an instant? We could do that monthly as long
>> as our combo sums to 50. -Goethe
>
> How much do yo
Do all rules that specify events to happen at a certain time have power <=
2? If not, than the Holidays rule (R1769) does not overrule it..
On Thursday 26 June 2008 8:30:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Oh hey, comex! Want to do a back-and-forth for trade for free to get us
> both above the limit for an instant? We could do that monthly as long
> as our combo sums to 50. -Goethe
How much do you two trust each other?
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> I post the following Buy Ticket:
> Action: Transfer 20 VP to Pavitra.
> Cost: 19 VP.
> Target: comex.
Oh hey, comex! Want to do a back-and-forth for trade for free to get us
both above the limit for an instant? We could do that monthly as long
as our
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2008, at 5:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Sgeo wrote:
>>> What was the point of the first change? Unsuccessful fountain attempt?
>>> Also,
>>> how did those proposals pass?
>>
>> An INSANE economic scam let us corner t
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> On Thursday 26 June 2008 6:20:51 Quazie wrote:
>> Historian should be an office that Murphy has... or something of the
>> sort, where E can gain more than just kudos for his weekly journals.
>
> Especially now that Kudos aren't an Agoran currency.
Strangel
> It could be that it can devolve obligations without the person it
> devolves to being able to
> uphold these obligations. Then it's trivially TRUE, and ehrid is still a
> player.
This seems to me to be obviously the case. The concept of "SHALL and
CANNOT" is wholeheartedly compatible with the Sp
> I realize my mistake.
ISTID!
On Thursday 26 June 2008 6:20:51 Quazie wrote:
> Historian should be an office that Murphy has... or something of the
> sort, where E can gain more than just kudos for his weekly journals.
Especially now that Kudos aren't an Agoran currency.
2008/6/27 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I submit the following proposal: AI=3 II=0 Name='Race the Hare' Co-Author=Sgeo
>
> change 'initiator' to 'initiator of the tortoise'
>
Change it where, exactly?
Doesn't the proposal need to specify which rule? I mean, we know because of
context, but still..
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> THE AGORAN WEEKLY JOURNAL
> VOLUME 52, BACK ISSUE 3
> Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Historian should be an office that Murphy has... or something of the
sort, where E can gain more than just kudos for his weekly journals
What I mean is, is the initiator the person who initiated the CFJ, or the
person who made the win announcement?
Is "initiator" well-defined in
Win by Paradox
On Jun 26, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
So I envisioned that people would probably consider it, but I
didn't envision
that someone actually did it. That said, after the event I wasn't
suprised that
it was comex who did it.
You should have
On Jun 26, 2008, at 5:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Sgeo wrote:
What was the point of the first change? Unsuccessful fountain
attempt? Also,
how did those proposals pass?
An INSANE economic scam let us corner the market on "vote points"
at AI-1.
More completely, it was a
comex wrote:
> Speaking of which, what happened to the AWJ? There have been no new
> entries on your AWJ page for over a year... and reading summaries of
> old gameplay is pretty fun.
I still have an "AWJ" folder containing all the backlogged messages
that I might conceivably summarize in future
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Sgeo wrote:
> What was the point of the first change? Unsuccessful fountain attempt? Also,
> how did those proposals pass?
An INSANE economic scam let us corner the market on "vote points" at AI-1.
Then we changed an AI-1-definition to let us pass AI-2 stuff with a simple
m
What was the point of the first change? Unsuccessful fountain attempt? Also,
how did those proposals pass?
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reviewing the AWJ:
Speaking of which, what happened to the AWJ? There have been no new
entries on your AWJ page for over a year... and reading summaries of
old gameplay is pretty fun.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the equation still wouldn't go into effect until a week after
> the scam AFFIRM, which is enough time to block via proposal if the
> anti-scamsters (including Promotor and Assessor) are quick about it;
Assuming (as I s
Sgeo wrote:
> I understand that nowadays, it's possible for a rule of power 3 to
> elevate itself higher, but was that the case when the Fountain was
> passed? If not, how did it get to be Power 4?
Reviewing the AWJ: Proposals 4327 through 4329 changed the rule
assigning Power to proposals, firs
2008/6/26 Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Wait, what? What server?
>
> --
> Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
> -- Unknown
>
eso-std.org's server.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> H. Notary is ais523, and he has root on that server. (So do I, but I
>> certainly
>> didn't twiddle the bits.)
>
> I protest. I have never been o
I understand that nowadays, it's possible for a rule of power 3 to elevate
itself higher, but was that the case when the Fountain was passed? If not,
how did it get to be Power 4?
2008/6/26 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ps. thanks for coming clean, e-not-rid-hird.
However, depending on who you ask, I may be 'ehrid'.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
> I initiate a criminal case against ehird, for violating Rule 2149 by
> saying that e joins. In fact, as e knew, the statement was
> ineffective (because e deregistered less than thirty days prior to
> it), so e did not join at any time around the posting of th
ehird wrote:
> 2008/6/26 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Gratuituous evidence:
>
> Very gratuitous considering my last 'work of art'.
I didn't receive it until after sending my message.
> Oh, and I do indeed use the name 'tusho'. It wasn't made up
> on the spot.
Your use of it on IRC was men
2008/6/26 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/6/26 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Gratuituous evidence:
>
> Very gratuitous considering my last 'work of art'.
>
Oh, and I do indeed use the name 'tusho'. It wasn't made up
on the spot.
2008/6/26 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Gratuituous evidence:
Very gratuitous considering my last 'work of art'.
comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:25 PM, tusho ?
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well! I'd like to join this here Agoranomicgamething. May I? Good,
>> that's nice of you.
>>
>> I join.
>
> I initiate a criminal case against ehird, for violating Rule 2149 by
> saying that e joins. In fact,
comex wrote:
>> If you couldn't "sign away" some portion of your rights, contracts wouldn't
>> work at all, and the courts have clearly showed that they do actually
>> function.
>
> Wait, why wouldn't contracts work at all?
If you couldn't sign away some portion of your rights, then the thing
th
. . . . . . o . . . . . . o . . . . . o . o O . o O O O O O O O
/-\
| |
| |
\-/
/-\
| |
| |
\-/
/-\
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
> Maud received no exile for eir similar doings.
E actually offered to go, and then helped clean up, and was a strong
and trusted member of the community, personally and privately apologized
to several, and finally, the confession came out of the blue long after
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
>>> Rule 2169 plainly says that "the judgement is in effect as a binding
>>> agreement between the parties [of the original contract].".
>>
>> But R2145
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, tusho ? wrote:
>> 2008/6/26 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> HmmI smell something fishy
>>>
>>> BobTHJ
>>>
>>
>> Huh?
>
> We were just discussing what sorts of things would happen if a curr
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
>> Rule 2169 plainly says that "the judgement is in effect as a binding
>> agreement between the parties [of the original contract].".
>
> But R2145, which states that responsibilities devol
2008/6/26 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hmmdidn't think of that. Perhaps the Protection Racket needs
> amended to allow such action?
>
> BobTHJ
>
That would be too specific. It's an odd clause.
ehird
2008/6/26 tusho ? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well! I'd like to join this here Agoranomicgamething. May I? Good,
> that's nice of you.
>
> I join.
>
> --
> tusho ? (questionmark)
>
Welcome to Agora, by the way. You're a player, which is more than I
can say.
ehird
2008/6/26 tusho ? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/6/26 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> All new members between today and day x, where x is the day ehird can
>> re-register are suspicious in my book.
>>
>
> Hmm .. you just contacted me on gmail chat about this. I'll quote it
>
> (WORDS)
Unfortunate choi
2008/6/26 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> All new members between today and day x, where x is the day ehird can
> re-register are suspicious in my book.
>
Hmm .. you just contacted me on gmail chat about this. I'll quote it
[snip]
quazienomic: the chances of you being a random person from the UK w
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:25 PM, tusho ?
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well! I'd like to join this here Agoranomicgamething. May I? Good,
>> that's nice of you.
>>
>> I join.
>>.
>> --
>> tusho ? (questionmark)
>>
>
> N
2008/6/26 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Now would be a good time to ratify some reports and give us a known
> good gamestate for the Horrible Gamestate Recalculation Of 2008.
>
Well...er...okay. I'm not entirely sure what all this is about but
that's fine by me!
--
tusho ? (questionmark)
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:25 PM, tusho ?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well! I'd like to join this here Agoranomicgamething. May I? Good,
> that's nice of you.
>
> I join.
>
> --
> tusho ? (questionmark)
>
Now would be a good time to ratify some reports and give us a known
good gamestate for the Ho
2008/6/26 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> HmmI smell something fishy
>
> BobTHJ
>
Huh?
--
tusho ? (questionmark)
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:25 PM, tusho ?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well! I'd like to join this here Agoranomicgamething. May I? Good,
> that's nice of you.
>
> I join.
>
HmmI smell something fishy
BobTHJ
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/6/26 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Gratuitous argument: a reasonable person wouldn't agree to be bound by
>>> a contract so that
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/26 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Gratuitous argument: a reasonable person wouldn't agree to be bound by
>> a contract so that restricted eir behavior in such a way. (On the
>> other hand, "would cause" seems
2008/6/26 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Gratuitous argument: a reasonable person wouldn't agree to be bound by
> a contract so that restricted eir behavior in such a way. (On the
> other hand, "would cause" seems a bit weak; if it was worded "might
> cause" there might be a stronger argume
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If
> indirect preventions are counted, then almost any game action could be
> forbidden on the grounds that it led to breaching the contract.
Gratuitous argument: a reasonable person wouldn't agree to be bound by
a contract
2008/6/26 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I protest. I have never been on that server.
>
> -root (hoping for a [EMAIL PROTECTED] email address)
>
*g*
ehird
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The "CAN bind them if they attempt to register" clause explicitly
> allows exile to do what it says, at least wrt playerhood. We may
> need to create a variation making all eir gamestate-relevant actions
> ineffective, though. (I suggest naming it COVENTRY
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> As for contracts binding non-players, how are they binding? The
> person SHALL abide by them, but what do we do if they don't?
It is binding on their Agoran properties if any (if they don't have any,
Agora isn't really concerned). Hence equity. We r
Wooble wrote:
> As for contracts binding non-players, how are they binding? The
> person SHALL abide by them, but what do we do if they don't?
> Sentencing them to chokey, fine, and exile are sort of meaningless
> (assuming they don't, within the tariff period, decide that they want
> to register
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> A fair question, and one that has been vexing me as late. The question:
>>> what does "continue to play" mean? That phrasing of
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>> I for one would be happy to eliminate the possibility of non-players
>> "playing in the larger sense".
>
> How would that work? "Any attempt by a non-player to perform an action
> that would affect the gamestate is unsuccessful, unless the
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> H. Notary is ais523, and he has root on that server. (So do I, but I certainly
> didn't twiddle the bits.)
I protest. I have never been on that server.
-root (hoping for a [EMAIL PROTECTED] email address)
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> BobTHJ wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2047
== CFJ 204
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, I think it could be 'not envisioned'. I mean, obviously I was
>>> aware that it was
>>> *possible* that someone could deregister me, but I hoped (and
>>> believed) that it wouldn't
>>> happen - sinc
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Change the power of Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora) to 3, and
> amend it by replacing this text:
>
> A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register
> within thirty days after doing so.
>
> A p
BobTHJ wrote:
>> Anyway, I think it could be 'not envisioned'. I mean, obviously I was
>> aware that it was
>> *possible* that someone could deregister me, but I hoped (and
>> believed) that it wouldn't
>> happen - since anyone looking at it would realise it's not a novelty
>> to discover it could
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2047
>>>
>>> == CFJ 2047
Wooble wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A fair question, and one that has been vexing me as late. The question:
>> what does "continue to play" mean? That phrasing of R101 didn't envision
>> attempting to having contracts that were permitted to
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Any Don can
> cause another Don to cease to be bound by this contract without the
> objection of a Don."
>
> Is this to be able to easily kick out inactive Dons? Because the Don to be
> kicked out can always just object..
>
Yes in
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2047
>>
>> == CFJ 2047 ==
>>
>>notehird is a registered player.
>>
>> ===
ehird wrote:
> 2008/6/26 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Proto-Proposal: Ruleset as Contract
>> (AI = 3, II = 3, please)
>
> You sent this to a-b. Oops?
I felt it was important enough to send to the PF.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
> Rule 2169 plainly says that "the judgement is in effect as a binding
> agreement between the parties [of the original contract].".
But R2145, which states that responsibilities devolve to members, clearly
has precedence over R2169.
I agree with everything you
2008/6/26 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Any Don can
> cause another Don to cease to be bound by this contract without the
> objection of a Don."
>
> Is this to be able to easily kick out inactive Dons? Because the Don to be
> kicked out can always just object..
>
I imagine so.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/26 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> As I indicated previously, I don't mind minor corruption of the
>> judicial system through the Protection Racket, however I am not
>> interested in bringing down all the upstandi
"Any Don can
cause another Don to cease to be bound by this contract without the
objection of a Don."
Is this to be able to easily kick out inactive Dons? Because the Don to be
kicked out can always just object..
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A fair question, and one that has been vexing me as late. The question:
> what does "continue to play" mean? That phrasing of R101 didn't envision
> attempting to having contracts that were permitted to be binding to
> non
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is doubly wrong. First, deregistering doesn't absolve you of
>> contractual obligations; second, non-players are not generally
>> restricted from possessing or transferring as
2008/6/26 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> That's not the same as providing testimony in a forum of record. If e points
> me to the same info, that's sufficient. The issue is, I want a second opinion
> on what varied changes happened and when. -G.
>
Yes, I was just making a note.
ehird
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/6/26 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> H. Notary, as "ehrid" is/was (apparently) a public contract, can you confirm
>> the text and membership in the PF? -Goethe
>
> H. Notary is ais523, and he has root on that server. (So do I, but I certainly
>
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> So I envisioned that people would probably consider it, but I didn't envision
> that someone actually did it. That said, after the event I wasn't suprised
> that
> it was comex who did it.
You should have envisioned that comex would have envisioned that
2008/6/26 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> H. Notary, as "ehrid" is/was (apparently) a public contract, can you confirm
> the text and membership in the PF? -Goethe
H. Notary is ais523, and he has root on that server. (So do I, but I certainly
didn't twiddle the bits.)
The previous official No
2008/6/26 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Gratuitous: my first thought was: "I should deregister em. Naw, that's
> boring." But the fact that it was (apparently) the first thought of
> many who read it might mean it should have been envisioned as likely.
> -Goethe.
>
I didn't envision that i
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is doubly wrong. First, deregistering doesn't absolve you of
> contractual obligations; second, non-players are not generally
> restricted from possessing or transferring assets (only certain
> assets are restricted to b
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should we create the Agoran equivalent of an LLC?
You can already do that, just don't expect much support to get them
accepted as persons.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> Anyway, I think it could be 'not envisioned'. I mean, obviously I was
> aware that it was
> *possible* that someone could deregister me, but I hoped (and
> believed) that it wouldn't
> happen - since anyone looking at it would realise it's not a novelty
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
This CFJ seems to be FALSE. Why should a member of a partnershi
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/26 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> H. Notary, can you provide me with the ehrid contract and membership as
>> it stood at the time of this CFJ (or confirm that the text and membership
>> on the website you've p
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since I am notehird now, it's not that ambiguous. (This escapes me
> from that evil pledge, for what it's worth)
I'm not entirely convinced. You're the same person who was referred
to by the pledge, regardless of a change
2008/6/26 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Proto-Proposal: Ruleset as Contract
> (AI = 3, II = 3, please)
You sent this to a-b. Oops?
notehird
2008/6/26 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As I indicated previously, I don't mind minor corruption of the
> judicial system through the Protection Racket, however I am not
> interested in bringing down all the upstanding citizens of Agora upon
> my head. I therefore invite ehird or notehird (whi
2008/6/26 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Can you (all of you) please continue referring to ehrid as Teh Cltohed
> Mna? Calling it ehrid does nothing but make people look twice so that
> they know who you're referring to.
>
> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>
Since I am notehird now, it's not that ambiguous. (Thi
2008/6/26 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> H. Notary, can you provide me with the ehrid contract and membership as
> it stood at the time of this CFJ (or confirm that the text and membership
> on the website you've provided was accurate to that time)? -Goethe
>
http://eso-std.org/~ais523/nota
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2047
>
> == CFJ 2047 ==
>
>notehird is a registered player.
>
> ===
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ELIGIBLE PROPOSALS (Jun 16 - Jun 22)
>> --
>> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
>> *5412 O1 1woggle More permanan
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
