On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> require a detailed knowledge of how it works.) As non-Agorans are not
>> even necessarily subscribed to a public forum, it seems quite possible
>> that a non-Agoran could join an Agor
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> require a detailed knowledge of how it works.) As non-Agorans are not
> even necessarily subscribed to a public forum, it seems quite possible
> that a non-Agoran could join an Agoran contract yet be unaware of the
> equity system
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, e ruled that "knowingly" giving implicit consent, with obvious intent
>> that it be consent, was close enough to explicit that it could be
>> considered explicit.
>
> E ruled, if we
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, e ruled that "knowingly" giving implicit consent, with obvious intent
> that it be consent, was close enough to explicit that it could be
> considered explicit.
E ruled, if we are to take eir arguments literally, that a
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Implicitly agreeing to a contract doesn't actually work, but one example
>>> would be me posting to a-b (or better,
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:13:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
>>> Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as
>>> "explicit"?
>>
>> Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ
>> 1290. -G
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ 1290.
> -Goethe
Except that in this case, Judge solublefish repeatedly calls a message
Goethe sent for the sole purpose of (possibly) joining the Agora the
B
On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:13:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
> > Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as
> > "explicit"?
>
> Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ
> 1290. -Goethe
Reading the arguments on 1290, it seems
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Implicitly agreeing to a contract doesn't actually work, but one example
>> would be me posting to a-b (or better, putting into the ruleset):
>> {{{
>> This is a contract. Any player of Agora
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Implicitly agreeing to a contract doesn't actually work, but one example
> would be me posting to a-b (or better, putting into the ruleset):
> {{{
> This is a contract. Any player of Agora who does not opt out of this
> contract i
On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 18:35 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If there is a rule in the ruleset that
> > implies that people can be potentially bound by an equation if they
> > agree to a contract, it stands to reason that a player should b
11 matches
Mail list logo
