I am very skeptical that R869 is broken, but I’ll be interested to hear
your ruling.
-Aris
On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 6:05 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> If no one has favored these CFJs, I do so.
>
> When D. Margaux explained eir scam to me privately at the beginning of the
> week, we had an interesti
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote:
- You can change the rules if everyone agrees to it, without needing a
proposal for it. R1742: "A contract may be modified, including by changing
the set of parties, by agreement between all existing parties."
That rule has too low power to trump the safe
The proposal that put our current contact system into place said “destroy all
contracts.” Luckily, it was before the rule defined “contract” was created, so
it’s probably fine. (Also, our safeguards probably would have cleaned things up)
Gaelan
> On Feb 9, 2019, at 10:36 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
Actually, the CFJ I submitted was not to the public forum, so it doesn't
count. But you seem to have covered it up pretty well, so I won't resubmit.
On 2/9/19 11:36 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
I submit the following CFJ, and I suggest the same Judge to be assigned to
both (it's trivially False if Tr
4 matches
Mail list logo
