On 6/22/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This *almost* asks for a return of Disinterested proposals, probably better
implemented in the current game state as Unanimous Consent: An AI-1
proposal that passes if nobody votes against it, but doesn't gain VCs.
I'm not sure I follow.
On Jun 20, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On 6/20/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Frankly, it's far more of an abuse that a single natural player can
accumulate 13x (or arbitrarily more) base voting power on
something through
free submission of trivial fix proposals. That's m
On 6/20/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> I'm too lazy to be that proactive about it, nor do I want to get
> bogged down in the extra requirements of multiple R1742 agreements
> just to keep up with the Joneses.
That's an argument against implementing VCs, cards, currenci
root wrote:
> I'm too lazy to be that proactive about it, nor do I want to get
> bogged down in the extra requirements of multiple R1742 agreements
> just to keep up with the Joneses.
That's an argument against implementing VCs, cards, currencies, points,
and perhaps some offices. -G.
On 6/20/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> * Hold office. This creates an obvious loophole around Rule 1450,
> easily fixed using partnership bases.
Don't over-fix the problem. For instance, if the Speaker is a
partnership and the CotC is a natural-person member of that
par
root wrote:
If partnerships were composed of non-player entities, e.g. if Wal-Mart
were to register, then I don't think there would be a problem. But in
practice the partnerships are constructed by players, resulting in
uneven representation of the natural players. This goes beyond just
Agoran
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Zefram wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >I hereby deregister Human Point Two via R869.
>
> Are you claiming that HP2 has lost person status by a change of
> partners? If not, if partnerships don't (and didn't) qualify as persons
> then HP2 was never a person and so could never reg
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Partnerships can still:
Some of these there's a good case for restricting. I don't see a problem
with them holding office, in general, though, or voting on non-democratic
proposals.
-zefram
comex wrote:
>I hereby deregister Human Point Two via R869.
Are you claiming that HP2 has lost person status by a change of partners?
If not, if partnerships don't (and didn't) qualify as persons then HP2
was never a person and so could never register as a player.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Does this mean that "cutoff for challenges", in the protection of
>the proposal system, is outweighed any time the challenge is related to a
>rule with higher precedence?
Not sure what you envision in "related to". It's not outweighed due
to the proposal attempting to modify a
On 6/20/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Overall, nothing's changed here in your above general opinion in
a long time: in 2001 we were trying to implement teams/partnerships
in a meaningful way (that was my first scam, CFJoops the CotC web
is offline this moment).
Groups weren't consi
On 6/20/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Frankly, it's far more of an abuse that a single natural player can
accumulate 13x (or arbitrarily more) base voting power on something through
free submission of trivial fix proposals. That's more of a chilling
effect on voting than partnership
root wrote:
> * Abuse VCs.
When you consider that all VPOP of an org. is divided among partners,
and VC of an org must be split between partners, it's not much gain.
Frankly, it's far more of an abuse that a single natural player can
accumulate 13x (or arbitrarily more) base voting power on som
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> * Abuse VCs. A player who controls a partnership can use the
> partnership's VCs to raise eir own voting limit, and eir own VCs to
> raise the partnership's voting limit, at a cost of 1 VC per vote. A
> player outside of a partnership must resort to a
On 6/20/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Again, that may be the interest of the majority of the players, but
> the players are not the game.
Are you sure about that :)
I certainly don't think of the game as being merely the set of its
players.
On 6/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
> I *do*
>think that the existence of partnerships is damaging to the game.
How so? There are certainly a couple of problems with giving partnerships
the same status as natur
On Wednesday 20 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> Again, that may be the interest of the majority of the players, but
> the players are not the game.
Are you sure about that :)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Zefram wrote:
> But if HP2 was never a player then e was categorically incapable of being
> speaker. R103, imposing that restriction, takes precedence over R402.
Does this mean that "cutoff for challenges", in the protection of
the proposal system, is outweighed any time the challenge is related
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Speaker transitions are also pragmatic by R402, and this
>one wasn't challenged within a week, either.
But if HP2 was never a player then e was categorically incapable of being
speaker. R103, imposing that restriction, takes precedence over R402.
>it turns out that the Speake
Murphy wrote:
> * I would still be Speaker; OscarMeyr (I think) would still be IADoP
Speaker transitions are also pragmatic by R402, and this
one wasn't challenged within a week, either. What happens is probably
that "suddenly" (upon the judgement of 1684? Upon it being sustained?)
it turns
Ian Kelly wrote:
> I *do*
>think that the existence of partnerships is damaging to the game.
How so? There are certainly a couple of problems with giving partnerships
the same status as natural persons, but we've implemented restrictions
a
On 6/20/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
By my count, seven out of ten natural-person players are currently
members of purportedly-registered partnerships. A proposal opposing
the concept was rejected; a proposal supporting the concept was
adopted. In short, most of us seem to /want/ 16
Ian Kelly wrote:
>How so? CFJ 1671 appears to have relied on CFJ 1623 for its precedent
>in this area.
The reasoning of CFJ 1671 certainly relied on the reasoning of CFJ 1623.
The important bit is the judgement of TRUE in CFJ 1623, which is the bit
that forms a true legal precedent, which incorpo
root wrote:
On 6/19/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It can (if the Board of Appeals agrees) accomplish the reversal of
the judgement of CFJ 1684. Not because I disagree with its
reasonableness either, but I find the judgements of CFJs 1622 and
1623 to also be reasonable, and heavily f
On 6/19/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It can (if the Board of Appeals agrees) accomplish the reversal of
the judgement of CFJ 1684. Not because I disagree with its
reasonableness either, but I find the judgements of CFJs 1622 and
1623 to also be reasonable, and heavily favored by the
root wrote:
On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I call for appeal of CFJ 1684. Not because I necessarily disagree with
its reasonableness, but as it conflicts with the (now possibly
non-existent
judgments of) 1622 and 1623. A Court of Appeals on a CFJ out of the
self-
refere
On 6/19/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ha! :)
*ahem*
CHAOS AND DISORDER! YAY!
- Her Most Chaotic Divinity, The Goddess Eris
On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, no. The second sentence states that partnerships are created
by agreements, and by the first sentence, those partnerships are in the
set of non-natural persons. Since it's legal to make these partnerships,
it's possible for the set of no
root wrote:
> No, it does not. [R2145] explicitly defines partnerships.
Sorry, no. The second sentence states that partnerships are created
by agreements, and by the first sentence, those partnerships are in the
set of non-natural persons. Since it's legal to make these partnerships,
it's poss
On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wrote:
>I call for appeal of Eris's judgement of CFJ 1684,
Additional argument for appeal: Eris's judgement is inconsistent with
the judgement on CFJ 1671, concerning the registration (and so implicitly
the personhood) of Second System Effect.
Ho
On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> Rule 2145 merely ascribes some properties to persons created by
> agreements. It doesn't itself allow for such persons to be created in
> the first place.
It explicitly defines non-natural persons,
No, it does not. It explicit
root wrote:
> Rule 2145 merely ascribes some properties to persons created by
> agreements. It doesn't itself allow for such persons to be created in
> the first place.
It explicitly defines non-natural persons, which strongly implies that
they exist in the eyes of the rules. At the very least,
root wrote:
> CFJ 1684 is a more recent judgment, and so we
> should abide by that precedent rather than by the older ones.
Maybe I'm missing something. Isn't the idea of precedent that judges
should be guided by past judgments, and where two independent judgments
conflict, a higher court takes
On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> Since the issue was resolved by a subsequent CFJ rather than an
> appeal, I would argue for the latter in this case.
Except that the opposite interpretation has since then been directly coded
into law, by Proposal 4977 which creat
root wrote:
> Since the issue was resolved by a subsequent CFJ rather than an
> appeal, I would argue for the latter in this case.
Except that the opposite interpretation has since then been directly coded
into law, by Proposal 4977 which created Rule 2145, so the CFJ is in fact
out of date, prov
On 6/19/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, I'm confused here. Are we to go back and rewrite history, declaring that
the various partnerships were never able to register? Or are partnerships no
longer persons from this point on?
Since the issue was resolved by a subsequent CFJ rather
On 6/19/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I call for appeal of CFJ 1684. Not because I necessarily disagree with
its reasonableness, but as it conflicts with the (now possibly non-existent
judgments of) 1622 and 1623. A Court of Appeals on a CFJ out of the self-
referential loop is th
On 6/19/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I take significant exception to the unaddressed assumption in CFJ 1623
that the definition of "person" to be used is a legal one. Rule 754(3)
states: "Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,
and not addressed by previous provisions o
38 matches
Mail list logo
