On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 10:51 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/3/23 Charles Walker :
> > You could say something along the lines of
> > 'Where another nomic makes it possible for Agora or a representative of
> > Agora to perform actions within that nomic, X (person or post) may, without
> > 3 or
Well I don't actually play Agora so I wouldn't know. I'ts probably better to
change the Ambassador rule.
C-walker
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> This X should probably be an office, but I'm not sure which one: first
> I thought the natural choice would be the Ambassador
2009/3/23 Charles Walker :
> You could say something along the lines of
> 'Where another nomic makes it possible for Agora or a representative of
> Agora to perform actions within that nomic, X (person or post) may, without
> 3 or more objections, perform those actions.'
This X should probably be a
You should keep it general, but you need to mention who is going to vote on
Agora's behalf as the liaison. You could say something along the lines of
'Where another nomic makes it possible for Agora or a representative of
Agora to perform actions within that nomic, X (person or post) may, without
3
So, if I want to make a proposal about us joining IN2, how should I
word it? Is referring to another nomic in the rules a good idea, or
should they be kept general?
5 matches
Mail list logo
