On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still believe that agreeing that a contract will be "binding
> under the rules of Agora" constitutes sufficiently explicit
> agreement to an equation handed down by the rules of Agora for
> the purpose of enforcing the spirit
comex wrote:
> As I said, it would be very easy and I think has been proposed to make
> equations amendments and therefore more effective (although the pledge
> thing would have to be fixed). I'll be voting against it, though.
This approach had some problems pointed out:
* Original contract m
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I support this. The equity case process, when coupled with appeals,
> means that any party has an opportunity to "review" an agreement amendment
> imposed by equity, thus not conflicting with R101(v). (Note that R101v
> is w
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12:18 Sun 11 May , Iammars wrote:
>> Between Shadowmoor and AP Testing, I didn't get to check up on my
>> stuff I needed. CFJs and Reports should be coming up.
>>
>> For all votes in this message, I vote for that
On 12:18 Sun 11 May , Iammars wrote:
> Between Shadowmoor and AP Testing, I didn't get to check up on my
> stuff I needed. CFJs and Reports should be coming up.
>
> For all votes in this message, I vote for that proposal in that manner
> as many times as I am allowed.
>
> 5508: FOR
> 5509: FO
5 matches
Mail list logo
