On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 08:18 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Benjamin Caplan
> wrote:
> > All this is far more complicated than it's worth.
> > {
> > Amend rule 1742 (Contracts) by appending the paragraph:
> > A person CAN on behalf of another as authorized by a public
>
comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Benjamin Caplan
> wrote:
>> All this is far more complicated than it's worth.
>> {
>> Amend rule 1742 (Contracts) by appending the paragraph:
>> � � �A person CAN on behalf of another as authorized by a public
>> � � �contract to which the person on
Sucks
The iPhone
But
I'm sorry
On 2009-06-03, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
>> What about private contracts?
>
> It was suggested recently, and I think I agree, that private
> act-on-behalf authorization is generally a Bad Thing because it makes it
> difficult or impossible to
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:18 PM, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Benjamin Caplan
> wrote:
> > All this is far more complicated than it's worth.
> > {
> > Amend rule 1742 (Contracts) by appending the paragraph:
> > A person CAN on behalf of another as authorized by a public
>
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> All this is far more complicated than it's worth.
> {
> Amend rule 1742 (Contracts) by appending the paragraph:
> A person CAN on behalf of another as authorized by a public
> contract to which the person on whose behalf e is acti
2009/6/3 Charles Reiss :
>It is POSSIBLE to attorn if the attornee is party to a Public
> contract explicitly permitting acting on behalf of the attornee.
I think there is a bug in here allowing anyone to act on behalf of me
even if the contract only permits, say, a contestmaster to do it.
--
2009/6/3 Alex Smith :
> An attornor CAN attorning to perform a specific action by announcement
> if the attornee is party to a contract that specifically allows (...)
Should this be "CAN attorn"?
--
-Tiger
Pavitra wrote:
> Where's that quote from originally? It sounds familiar.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/I_accidentally_X
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>
>> A person CAN on behalf of another as authorized by a public
>> contract to which the person on whose behalf e is acting is a
>> party.
>
> "I accidentally to a-d. Is this dangerous?"
>
CAN *act* on behalf, good catch.
Where's that quote
Pavitra wrote:
> A person CAN on behalf of another as authorized by a public
> contract to which the person on whose behalf e is acting is a
> party.
"I accidentally to a-d. Is this dangerous?"
All this is far more complicated than it's worth.
{
Amend rule 1742 (Contracts) by appending the paragraph:
A person CAN on behalf of another as authorized by a public
contract to which the person on whose behalf e is acting is a
party.
}
Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
> What about private contracts?
It was suggested recently, and I think I agree, that private
act-on-behalf authorization is generally a Bad Thing because it makes it
difficult or impossible to determine from publicly available information
whether someone's attempt to cause
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 12:09 +0900, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
> What about private contracts?
The proposal's specifically designed to prevent attorning via private
contracts.
--
ais523
What about private contracts?
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On 6/2/09 3:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 00:12 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> >
> >> 3. Immediately after an Agoran Decision is initiated, the Conservative
> >> Party acts on behalf of e
On 6/2/09 3:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 00:12 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>
>> 3. Immediately after an Agoran Decision is initiated, the Conservative
>> Party acts on behalf of each of its parties to cause that party to vote
>> on that decision with the option selected be
Sean Hunt wrote:
> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Alex Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 18:32 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Alex Smith wrote:
> attornee>'s behalf"). It is IMPOSSIBLE to attorn if:
> - The action could be performed by the attornee by announcement, and
> - At least
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 18:43 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 18:32 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> >> Alex Smith wrote:
> >> > attornee>'s behalf"). It is IMPOSSIBLE to attorn if:
> >> > - The action could be performed by the attornee by announcement, and
Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 18:32 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>>> Alex Smith wrote:
attornee>'s behalf"). It is IMPOSSIBLE to attorn if:
- The action could be performed by the attornee by announcement, and
- At least one rule of power at leas
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 18:32 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Alex Smith wrote:
>> > attornee>'s behalf"). It is IMPOSSIBLE to attorn if:
>> > - The action could be performed by the attornee by announcement, and
>> > - At least one rule of power at least 1.7 explicitly permits th
Alex Smith wrote:
> attornee>'s behalf"). It is IMPOSSIBLE to attorn if:
> - The action could be performed by the attornee by announcement, and
> - At least one rule of power at least 1.7 explicitly permits the action,
> and no rule forbids it, and
> - The attornor is first-class.
Surely this sh
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:40 AM, comex wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Benjamin Caplan
>> wrote:
>>> �3. Immediately after an Agoran Decision is initiated, the Conservative
>>> Party acts on behalf of each of its parties to cause that party to vote
>>> on that dec
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:40 AM, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Benjamin Caplan
> wrote:
>> 3. Immediately after an Agoran Decision is initiated, the Conservative
>> Party acts on behalf of each of its parties to cause that party to vote
>> on that decision with the option selecte
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> 3. Immediately after an Agoran Decision is initiated, the Conservative
> Party acts on behalf of each of its parties to cause that party to vote
> on that decision with the option selected being party stance on that
> decision as defined la
23 matches
Mail list logo
