ais523 wrote:
>> 6400 O 1 1.5 Murphy No early rotation
> AGAINST; what happens if the Justiciar is forced to assign a case, but
> is unable to, because assigning judges to the other cases involved has
> to be done by the CotC?
Then the Justiciar is NOT GUILTY per R1504(e).
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Sean Hunt wrote:
Proposal 6397 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=0) by Pavitra
Support Diplomacy
>>> AGAINST, this defeats the purpose of the rule in the first place.
>> Not really. The purpose of the rule in the first place is to prevent
>> arbitr
On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 18:44 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Charles Reiss wrote:
> >> 6397 D 0 2.0 Pavitra Support Diplomacy
> > AGAINST (should not be disinterested)
> Um, what? "Should be disinterested" is a sensible enough reason to vote
> AGAINST a proposal, because the author of a
Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Proposal 6397 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=0) by Pavitra
>>> Support Diplomacy
>> AGAINST, this defeats the purpose of the rule in the first place.
> Not really. The purpose of the rule in the first place is to prevent
> arbitrary creation of corporate
Charles Reiss wrote:
>> 6397 D 0 2.0 Pavitra Support Diplomacy
> AGAINST (should not be disinterested)
Um, what? "Should be disinterested" is a sensible enough reason to vote
AGAINST a proposal, because the author of a passing interested proposal
gets paid for it, but... /what/? Is ther
On 7/6/09 10:06 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[snip]
>
> That aside, it's a more general issue. Let's say I have a detailed
> private contract with all sorts of economic and political manipulations.
> One small part of that is an "act on behalf of". When it happens,
> all the public needs to know is th
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
> Suppose one
> player acts on behalf of another claiming that a secret contract (which
> the second is party to, but the first isn't) allows them to. The second
> player cannot then object without revealing information that e is
> contractually obligated to keep
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Evidence: the quote above.
> >
> > Arguments: The issue here is about how much evidence needs to be given
> > for act-on-behalf to work. Contracts
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
> > Ah yes; my trigger publicises the whole contract. Doing it with portions
> > wouldn't necessarily be too difficult, though; you only need one slave
> > contract, which can be amended to add parties actions
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
>>> Ah yes; my trigger publicises the whole contract. Doing it with portions
>>> wouldn't necessarily be too difficult, though; you only need one slave
>>> contract, which
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> That aside, it's a more general issue. Let's say I have a detailed ...
>
> I've agreed to a private contract with ais523 called Fookie II. It
> contains the following text:
>
> 4. Any party to this contract
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
>> Ah yes; my trigger publicises the whole contract. Doing it with portions
>> wouldn't necessarily be too difficult, though; you only need one slave
>> contract, which can be amended to add parties actions as
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
> Ah yes; my trigger publicises the whole contract. Doing it with portions
> wouldn't necessarily be too difficult, though; you only need one slave
> contract, which can be amended to add parties actions as needed.
My whole point is, sure you can do that, but it
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:17 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I have at least one private contract with a trigger that does exactly
> > that. I think in this case, needing such a trigger is a good thing, so
> > that everyone knows the details of the actions that are being taken; why
> > require simulta
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 09:35 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> AGAINST. This should allow Private contracts to do so as well (if
>> the contract detail is published when the act is performed).
>> Otherwise, we'd just make zoop around it with some weirdness like "in
>
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:50 PM, comex wrote:
>> I don't think that would work as it would require acting on behalf to
>> create the public contract.
>
> The parties to a contract can agree to it secretly and have it become
> a public contract upon one o
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 09:35 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> AGAINST. This should allow Private contracts to do so as well (if
> the contract detail is published when the act is performed).
> Otherwise, we'd just make zoop around it with some weirdness like "in
> this private contract, the contract
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> 6402 D 1 3.0 woggle Regulating Act-on-Behalf
>> AGAINST. This should allow Private contracts to do so as well (if
>> the contract detail is published when the act is performed).
>> Otherwise, w
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:50 PM, comex wrote:
> I don't think that would work as it would require acting on behalf to
> create the public contract.
The parties to a contract can agree to it secretly and have it become
a public contract upon one of them publishing the contract and a list
of its par
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 6402 D 1 3.0 woggle Regulating Act-on-Behalf
> AGAINST. This should allow Private contracts to do so as well (if
> the contract detail is published when the act is performed).
> Otherwise, we'd just make zoop around it with some w
20 matches
Mail list logo
