> On Mar 2, 2020, at 2:50 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/2/2020 2:40 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Not yet. Think I have till tomorrow?
>>
>
> I'm showing it as assigned Feb 19th, due Feb 26th:
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/
On 3/2/2020 2:40 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> Not yet. Think I have till tomorrow?
>
I'm showing it as assigned Feb 19th, due Feb 26th:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-February/013456.html
(but I'm not going to recuse you for anoth
Not yet. Think I have till tomorrow?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 2, 2020, at 1:52 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
>
>> On 2/20/2020 3:08 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
>> CFJ 3813 asks us whether Agora is a contract...
>
> Gaelan did you ever deliver this jud
On 2/20/2020 3:08 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> CFJ 3813 asks us whether Agora is a contract...
Gaelan did you ever deliver this judgement I can't find anything on BUS or
OFF that has it just not sure if I'm missing it. -G.
On 2/20/2020 7:20 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2/20/20 9:48 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> Also fun: the first clause of the 2018 proposal (8054) was: "Destroy all
>> contracts".
>>
>> -G.
>
> Ouch. So, does that cause the destruction of the rest of the con
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 7:20 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 2/20/20 9:48 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> > So if the 2017 definition of "contract" clearly did NOT include the
> Rules,
> > then (when the rules changed in 2018) there h
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 6:52 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 2/20/2020 5:49 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 2/20/20 7:08 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> So when R1742 was re-implemented (replacing R2520-2527),
On Thu, 2020-02-20 at 22:20 -0500, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I would say that each consented to being bound by the rules of Agora
> when they became a player (assuming nobody became a player under
> coercion, or anything like that, which seems really unlikely)
https://faculty.washin
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 22:20, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Ouch. So, does that cause the destruction of the rest of the contracts
> to fail, or just Agora?
If no other rule would prevent undoing Agora, AIaN would prevent the
entire proposal from taking effect. It is, I believe, the on
On 2/20/20 9:48 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> So if the 2017 definition of "contract" clearly did NOT include the Rules,
> then (when the rules changed in 2018) there had to be a "moment of
> becoming a contract" for the rules, presumably when the 2018 proposal was
> adopted. Howev
On Thu, 2020-02-20 at 18:48 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Also fun: the first clause of the 2018 proposal (8054) was: "Destroy
> all contracts".
It's clearly impossible for a proposal like this to accidentally
destroy the ruleset, or other comparable important parts of Agora. (
Gratuitous: Rule 1742 states that a contract must be made by "one or
more consenting persons", but it doesn't specify what it is, exactly,
that the persons must consent to. It would seem reasonable to
interpret this as meaning that the persons must have consented to the
creation of a contract with
On 2/20/2020 5:49 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2/20/20 7:08 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
>> So when R1742 was re-implemented (replacing R2520-2527), we still ended up
>> with "Agora = agreement" and "contract = agreement" but the link "Agora =
>> contract", while
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 20:49, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 2/20/20 7:08 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> > So when R1742 was re-implemented (replacing R2520-2527), we still ended up
> > with "Agora = agreement" and "contract = agreement" but the link "Agora =
> > cont
On 2/20/20 7:08 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> So when R1742 was re-implemented (replacing R2520-2527), we still ended up
> with "Agora = agreement" and "contract = agreement" but the link "Agora =
> contract", while not inconsistent with the R1742 text, was never re-created.
>
> -G.
On 2/20/2020 3:08 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> CFJ 3813 asks us whether Agora is a contract. As noted by the caller, CFJ
> 3706 (Feb 9-14, 2019) asked a similar question. It was judged TRUE by G.
>
> As I see it, the questions before me are:
> 1) Was CFJ 3706 judged correctl
A prayer rosario better represents what I mean than a pearl necklace but
yeah.
[image: image.png]
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:43 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> This enters a bit of philosophic territory but I think it's interesting
> nonetheless.
>
> We routinely "agree" that the current incarnation o
This enters a bit of philosophic territory but I think it's interesting
nonetheless.
We routinely "agree" that the current incarnation of Agora in the present
exists in the way it does, via CfJs and self-ratification other mechanisms,
and that the incarnation in the present is binding upon us.
F
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:27 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 2/20/20 6:08 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I’ll start with the second question. It appears that the version of the
> > rule in question there was 8139/20. (The court admonishes G. for failing to
> >
On 2/20/20 6:08 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> I’ll start with the second question. It appears that the version of the rule
> in question there was 8139/20. (The court admonishes G. for failing to
> include revision numbers in his rule citations, by the way.) The current
> rule,
CFJ 3813 asks us whether Agora is a contract. As noted by the caller, CFJ 3706
(Feb 9-14, 2019) asked a similar question. It was judged TRUE by G.
As I see it, the questions before me are:
1) Was CFJ 3706 judged correctly?
2) Has there been a change in circumstances since then that would affect t
21 matches
Mail list logo
