Roger Hicks wrote:
My point is this: If we saddle officers with hefty fines for minor
infractions, then who's going to want to go through the work of being
an officer?
BobTHJ
It indicates the rules are broken (possibly recordkeeping duties are too
complex), and I would prefer fixing the broke
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 16:54, Sean Hunt wrote:
> comex wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>>
>>> Note that I'm not advocating removing penalties for mis-performing or
>>> non-performing officers. They need to be retained for cases of gross
>>> negligence in repeate
comex wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
Note that I'm not advocating removing penalties for mis-performing or
non-performing officers. They need to be retained for cases of gross
negligence in repeatedly ignoring duties even after becoming aware of
the issue. However, s
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Note that I'm not advocating removing penalties for mis-performing or
> non-performing officers. They need to be retained for cases of gross
> negligence in repeatedly ignoring duties even after becoming aware of
> the issue. However, simply be
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 13:13, Ed Murphy wrote:
> c. wrote:
>
>> iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a
>> binding agreement, and the privilege to refuse to be bound
>> by amendment to an agreement. In the case of becoming a
>> pa
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> How would this draw a line between mousetraps and not-intended-as-scams
> contract amendments that some parties don't like (e.g. W3O and only one
> party objects)? In particular, consider what happens if Y agrees to
> "X can act on behalf of Y t
BobTHJ wrote:
> Just to look at the big picture here, it seems rather unethical to
> penalize officers for infractions such as these. I think back to
> coppro's term as Grand Poobah - e was never able to publish a single
> correct report (most contained 5+ errors), e failed to make some deals
> on
c. wrote:
>iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a
> binding agreement, and the privilege to refuse to be bound
> by amendment to an agreement. In the case of becoming a
> party, the absence of a person's explicit, willful consent
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:36 AM, comex wrote:
> That's the idea of making it a privilege-- you can waive your privilege to
> not be bound by amendments to contract X beforehand, but it has to be
> explicit. Most contracts should work fine without a waiver-- what legitimate
> contract forbids its p
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 15, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
There should be some allowance for agreeing to a process of amendment
- for instance, if a player joins a contract allowing amendment by
announcement at their own risk. The amendment should, however, be very
specific as to wha
> iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a
> binding agreement, and the privilege to refuse to be bound
> by amendment to an agreement. In the case of becoming a
> party, the absence of a person's explicit, willful consent
> s
Amend R101 to read:
WHEREAS Agora, since its inception, has functioned not only as a
game but as a society, and WHEREAS a society, to function, must
balance its Rules with the natural rights of its participants,
BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that no interpretation of Agoran law o
12 matches
Mail list logo
