Exactly. But you're not catching the problem here.
Sure, 2+2 isn't 5. But if all Agorans are CONVINCED it is so and are NOT
AWARE that it is false, then, what happens? A CfJ Judging "is 2+2=5?" or
something, barring it being DIMISSed, would be TRUE. Right? That's the
question.
Agora doesn't run o
CFJs 1911 to 1914 are annotated on the FLR as holding "physical realities
supersede the rules by default"
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 7:41 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I've been wondering about this for a while and I figure it would make an
> interesting
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Also, about the scamster thing, I’d prefer not lol, because I’m not proud
> of my “scamming” here on Agora. It doesn’t have scamster merit because I do
> these things quite blindly - mere potshots in the dark - and I’m really
> just persistent, which isn
That title's generally reserved for *successful* scamsters :D
(Seriously, this request will give me an extra kick to submit that
patent title proposal, since scamster is one that's being delegated
to another office I'd like to wait to give them the chance).
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant w
Yeah. Like “This contract can never has parties”, but there isn’t a way to
know if they’re faking or not.
In fact, they could be, but due to this “it only becomes real once they
reveal it” thing mentioned, they could keep on violating it unpunished.
Loopholes! (I doubt thats their intent but yeah.
Also, about the scamster thing, I’d prefer not lol, because I’m not proud
of my “scamming” here on Agora. It doesn’t have scamster merit because I do
these things quite blindly - mere potshots in the dark - and I’m really
just persistent, which isnt a show of scamster skill in itself.
If I were ac
Generally I think you're right about "automatic" actions, but changing the list
of parties is something R1742/18 specifically says can happen automatically:
"A contract may be modified, including by changing the set of parties, by
agreement between all existing parties... For the purposes of thi
On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 10:22 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> The contract could say:
>
> “Nobody can join this contract and all members of it leave it
> immediately” or something like that.
I'm not sure contracts can take actions "automatically" like that.
They might be able to prevent people joining
But whether or not they are in a contract has no bearing on anything at all
until they decide to do something contingent on its text. Contracts are
untracked.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 8:22 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> The contract could say:
>
> “Nobody
The contract could say:
“Nobody can join this contract and all members of it leave it immediately”
or something like that.
But we don’t know if it has a content like that or not, so how can we know
they’re in a contract? It’s not solely “document + consent”. The content of
that document is necesa
A contract is a document plus consent.
-Aris
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 1:18 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> A document sure, but:
>
> A *contract*? That’s the issue.
>
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 10:17, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All they’ve done is agree to abide by
A document sure, but:
A *contract*? That’s the issue.
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 10:17, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All they’ve done is agree to abide by a document. That wasn’t hidden. If
> they do something based off that, then the probably will need to prove it,
>
All they’ve done is agree to abide by a document. That wasn’t hidden. If
they do something based off that, then the probably will need to prove it,
at least to the judge.
-Aris
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 1:15 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> About the evidence thing, wouldn’t the hidden-actions that G and
About the evidence thing, wouldn’t the hidden-actions that G and DMar need
evidence as well that they have formally happened?
Or, since there is no evidence, just like my own thing, it didn’t actually
happen? (Until its shown that it has, in which case reality suddenly
changes to it like that news
On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 08:01 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Looking at CFJ 1215, I believe this fails _even if the contract
> allows you to do that_, because I, the relevant recordkeepor, don't
> have the necessary information to determine what your action's effect
> would be.
The recordkeeping
Looking at CFJ 1215, I believe this fails _even if the contract allows you to
do that_, because I, the relevant recordkeepor, don't have the necessary
information to determine what your action's effect would be.
That's why I revealed the text of my contract with Aris before using its
provision
16 matches
Mail list logo
