On Friday 12 September 2008 03:27:37 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > It's still possible to have instruments with power less than 1,
> > though I've never seen it happen in practice.
>
> Unless I'm missing a loophole, such an inst
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Power 1.5, actually, but I grant that.
>
> At Power 1, you can amend R1922 to authorize yourself to grant MwoP to
> whomever you want. R1922 should have at least the same power as
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An Emergency Session would defeat the less rude method.
>
> -woggle
Then I suppose the politest way would be to add a clause that
automatically deregisters everyone only if an Emergency Session is
called.
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 14:14 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 2:06 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> >> Proto:
> >>
> >> Append the following text to Rule 2166 (Assets):
> >>
> >> Creation, destruction, and changes
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 13:38, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Take registration as an analogy. Registration has a Power-3 benefit
>> (the ability to vote on democratic proposals), but that doesn't mean
>> that registratio
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Take registration as an analogy. Registration has a Power-3 benefit
> (the ability to vote on democratic proposals), but that doesn't mean
> that registration needs to be tightly regulated at power 3 as well.
Well, for better
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:17 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Another point: if a document defines an asset as a currency, does that
>> explicitly permit free exchanges of it?
>
> No. Transferability is subject to
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's still possible to have instruments with power less than 1, though
> I've never seen it happen in practice.
Unless I'm missing a loophole, such an instrument would have to be a
rule, and it would need a passed AI <= 1 prop
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:17 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another point: if a document defines an asset as a currency, does that
> explicitly permit free exchanges of it?
No. Transferability is subject to modification by the backing
document, the same as for any asset. In the RPG exam
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sure, it just prevents that thing from being done by a non-instrument.
>
> And it should be noted that securing at power 0 in effect secures at
> pow
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure, it just prevents that thing from being done by a non-instrument.
And it should be noted that securing at power 0 in effect secures at
power 1, since you can't have a proposal with an AI < 1.0.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 2:06 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Proto:
>>
>> Append the following text to Rule 2166 (Assets):
>>
>> Creation, destruction, and changes in ownership of assets not
>> explicitly permitted by their
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 13:58 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It would be easier to manipulate point holdings at Power=1 to award
> > wins to all relevant persons.
>
> Proto:
>
> Append the following text to Rule 2166 (Assets):
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be easier to manipulate point holdings at Power=1 to award
> wins to all relevant persons.
Proto:
Append the following text to Rule 2166 (Assets):
Creation, destruction, and changes in ownership of assets
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Power 1.5, actually, but I grant that.
>>
>> At Power 1, you can amend R192
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Power 1.5, actually, but I grant that.
>
> At Power 1, you can amend R1922 to authorize yourself to grant MwoP to
> whomever you want. R1922 should
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Power 1.5, actually, but I grant that.
At Power 1, you can amend R1922 to authorize yourself to grant MwoP to
whomever you want. R1922 should have at least the same power as R649.
Of course, regardless of the power of R1922
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:16, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5698 D 1 3.0 comex Power Patent Titles
>> AGAINST. Simply upmutating R1922 would not make it any more difficult
>> to award the patent titles d
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 1:16 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 5698 D 1 3.0 comex Power Patent Titles
>> AGAINST. Simply upmutating R1922 would not make it any more difficult
>> to award the patent titles
19 matches
Mail list logo
