On 3/2/07, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And that is why all lectures at Monash university are conducted in German.
I remember hearing some of Steve's horror stories of having to learn
game theory from Lindrum in German. *shudders*
--
Michael Slone
On 2/26/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm talking about Austria. Nomic World ran on Austrian systems, and
if you ignore the fact that the message creating Agora was sent from a
New Zealand-based account, Agora itself is an Austrian institution.
For the first six-ish years of its l
Eris wrote:
On 2/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proto-proto: Partnerships are ineligible to judge a CFJ if all its
members are ineligible. If some but not all members are ineligible,
then the judgment must be supported by at least one eligible member
to be effective.
Much sim
On 2/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proto-proto: Partnerships are ineligible to judge a CFJ if all its
members are ineligible. If some but not all members are ineligible,
then the judgment must be supported by at least one eligible member
to be effective.
Much simpler to change "
Goethe wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statement, barring Goethe,
OscarMeyr, and Zefram:
But you didn't bar the Pineapple Partnership! Will the PP's
eligibility to judge block Rotation, etc.? I think "our" way
is a little safer... if a judge of a PP-called CFJ says that
PP isn't
Murphy wrote:
I thought you were the big proponent of resolving things judicially?
I am!
I call for judgement on the following statement, barring Goethe,
OscarMeyr, and Zefram:
But you didn't bar the Pineapple Partnership! Will the PP's
eligibility to judge block Rotation, etc.? I thin
Kerim Aydin wrote:
OscarMeyr:
I'm not counting this registration as valid at this time. We'll see
how the CFJ goes.
These two sentences contradict each other, as it was the Pineapple
Partnership that called the CFJ. :)
The Herald may have been bearing in mind that it is not e who
administer
OscarMeyr:
I'm not counting this registration as valid at this time. We'll see
how the CFJ goes.
These two sentences contradict each other, as it was the Pineapple
Partnership that called the CFJ. :)
-Goethe
On Feb 26, 2007, at 4:17 AM, Zefram wrote:
The Pineapple Partnership hereby registers as a player.
The Pineapple Partnership hereby calls for judgement on the statement
"the Pineapple Partnership is a person". Caller's arguments: the
Ruleset does not explicitly define "person", but R754(3)
Maud wrote:
Your binding agreement fails to satisfy the ``business'' requirement
as well as the ``view of profit'' requirement, so it isn't a
partnership.
Obviously, we haven't shared the confidential aspects of the
partnership's business arrangements.
I can reveal part of it: 2. ???
No,
On 2/26/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Pineapple Partnership hereby registers as a player.
Oh, beautiful!
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 2/26/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Map is part of Agoran law, and clearly not part of either Australian
Why are you dragging Australia into this? We've had players from
Germany before, but I don't think we've had any Australians. (But I'm
sure somebody will correct me if I'm wr
Michael Slone wrote:
>If Austrian law does not apply to Agora, then how do you explain the Map?
The Map is part of Agoran law, and clearly not part of either Australian
or Austrian law. The Map does not purport to incorporate any outside
source of law into Agora. What connection are you trying t
On 2/26/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's only the Australian law on the matter. Not applicable here.
If Austrian law does not apply to Agora, then how do you explain the Map?
--
Michael Slone
Michael Slone wrote:
>According to the Partnership Act 1958, Pt 2 Div. 1 s. 5 (1):
That's only the Australian law on the matter. Not applicable here.
Many legal jurisdictions have their own set of regulations about
partnerships. (E.g., here in the UK partnerships cannot have more than
20 partner
On 2/26/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The agreement creating the Pineapple Partnership contains all the
legal elements to construct a partnership. Principally, it is an
entity distinct from the partners, obligations on the Partnership
become obligations on the partners, and this is all l
Michael Slone wrote:
>Where is your argument for the claim that the Pineapple
>Partnership is actually a partnership?
The agreement creating the Pineapple Partnership contains all the
legal elements to construct a partnership. Principally, it is an
entity distinct from the partners, obligations o
On 2/26/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Pineapple Partnership hereby calls for judgement on the statement
"the Pineapple Partnership is a person". Caller's arguments: the
Ruleset does not explicitly define "person", but R754(3) refers to
the legal definition. In law a "person" is anyt
Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
> As an unregulated property of a person (Zefram), it is the
> sole discretion of Zefram (CFJ 1361), and should be FALSE.
But what if e /wants/ to be a pineapple?
There's another argument that might apply to properties of
persons (e.g. being a pineapple). R101(iv)
Goethe wrote:
As an unregulated property of a person (Zefram), it is the
sole discretion of Zefram (CFJ 1361), and should be FALSE.
But what if e /wants/ to be a pineapple?
On 2/1/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statement:
Zefram is a pineapple.
I wonder if it could, or should be possible to request to be a CFJ judge...
as i would enjoy this one.
21 matches
Mail list logo
