Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re-propose

2012-05-04 Thread omd
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > The difference was that at the time of 1358, the rules didn't define > or specify what a proposal's title was at all, and now you have to > submit with the "associated title", so arguably that's a legislative > override of 1358, and the submitte

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Golemkeepor] Golem Census

2012-05-04 Thread omd
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Crimes aside, I'm trying to decide if non-player ownership (and ability > to act on behalf of the golem) is a bug or feature, especially if > we're contemplating voting golems... I've always thought that non-player participation (and partnershi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re-propose

2012-05-04 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, 4 May 2012, omd wrote: > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > No complaints, but since proposals exist after they've failed, > > (I think by precedent?) does specifying the same title run afoul > > of Definition/Continuity of Entities (or any other rule?) > > CFJ 1358,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Golemkeepor] Golem Census

2012-05-04 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, 4 May 2012, omd wrote: > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Erm, speaking of which, I just noticed, non-players can own > > golems, no?  So a person can deregister and act through eir > > golem without punishment, no? > > The person can be punished despite being dere

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Golemkeepor] Golem Census

2012-05-04 Thread omd
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Erm, speaking of which, I just noticed, non-players can own > golems, no?  So a person can deregister and act through eir > golem without punishment, no? The person can be punished despite being deregistered (through Rule 2361, except it's brok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re-propose

2012-05-04 Thread omd
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > No complaints, but since proposals exist after they've failed, > (I think by precedent?) does specifying the same title run afoul > of Definition/Continuity of Entities (or any other rule?) CFJ 1358, ... I thought there was a more recent preced

DIS: Re: BUS: Re-propose

2012-05-04 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, 4 May 2012, omd wrote: > Proposal: Untitled (AI=3, coauthor=G.) > > Amend Rule 2350 (Proposals) by removing 'and an associated title'. No complaints, but since proposals exist after they've failed, (I think by precedent?) does specifying the same title run afoul of Definition/Continuity

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census

2012-05-04 Thread omd
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote: > FIRST-CLASS PLAYERS (23) > Nickname            E-mail address                    Since > ### > ---ACTIVE (16)- Thanks.