Just take over the Promotor or Assessor (preferably both) to hinder
proposals, the IADoP to prevent new people from taking office, and the
CotC to assign certain cases to scamsters. The gang can publish an
"ultimatum" and threaten to EXILE anyone who opposes it for 14 days or
so (of course, the ult
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the equation still wouldn't go into effect until a week after
> the scam AFFIRM, which is enough time to block via proposal if the
> anti-scamsters (including Promotor and Assessor) are quick about it;
Assuming (as I s
comex wrote:
>> If you couldn't "sign away" some portion of your rights, contracts wouldn't
>> work at all, and the courts have clearly showed that they do actually
>> function.
>
> Wait, why wouldn't contracts work at all?
If you couldn't sign away some portion of your rights, then the thing
th
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
>>> Rule 2169 plainly says that "the judgement is in effect as a binding
>>> agreement between the parties [of the original contract].".
>>
>> But R2145
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
>> Rule 2169 plainly says that "the judgement is in effect as a binding
>> agreement between the parties [of the original contract].".
>
> But R2145, which states that responsibilities devol
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The "CAN bind them if they attempt to register" clause explicitly
> allows exile to do what it says, at least wrt playerhood. We may
> need to create a variation making all eir gamestate-relevant actions
> ineffective, though. (I suggest naming it COVENTRY
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> As for contracts binding non-players, how are they binding? The
> person SHALL abide by them, but what do we do if they don't?
It is binding on their Agoran properties if any (if they don't have any,
Agora isn't really concerned). Hence equity. We r
Wooble wrote:
> As for contracts binding non-players, how are they binding? The
> person SHALL abide by them, but what do we do if they don't?
> Sentencing them to chokey, fine, and exile are sort of meaningless
> (assuming they don't, within the tariff period, decide that they want
> to register
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> A fair question, and one that has been vexing me as late. The question:
>>> what does "continue to play" mean? That phrasing of
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>> I for one would be happy to eliminate the possibility of non-players
>> "playing in the larger sense".
>
> How would that work? "Any attempt by a non-player to perform an action
> that would affect the gamestate is unsuccessful, unless the
Wooble wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A fair question, and one that has been vexing me as late. The question:
>> what does "continue to play" mean? That phrasing of R101 didn't envision
>> attempting to having contracts that were permitted to
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
> Rule 2169 plainly says that "the judgement is in effect as a binding
> agreement between the parties [of the original contract].".
But R2145, which states that responsibilities devolve to members, clearly
has precedence over R2169.
I agree with everything you
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A fair question, and one that has been vexing me as late. The question:
> what does "continue to play" mean? That phrasing of R101 didn't envision
> attempting to having contracts that were permitted to be binding to
> non
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is doubly wrong. First, deregistering doesn't absolve you of
>> contractual obligations; second, non-players are not generally
>> restricted from possessing or transferring as
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is doubly wrong. First, deregistering doesn't absolve you of
> contractual obligations; second, non-players are not generally
> restricted from possessing or transferring assets (only certain
> assets are restricted to b
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should we create the Agoran equivalent of an LLC?
You can already do that, just don't expect much support to get them
accepted as persons.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
This CFJ seems to be FALSE. Why should a member of a partnershi
Quazie wrote:
>> == CFJ 2040 ==
>>
>>If a partnership is party to another contract, individual
>>members of the contract may be required, by an equity settlement
>From context, this should be interpreted as "individual members of t
Quazie wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
>>> This CFJ seems to be FALSE. Why should a member of a partnership
>>> incur obligations when the partnership's obligations devolve onto em.
>> Um, because that's very t
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I change all sitting players to standing.
>
> The following are linked assignments.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2040
>
> == CFJ 2040 =
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
This CFJ seems to be FALSE. Why should a member of a partnership
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
>>> This CFJ seems to be FALSE. Why should a member of a partnership
>>> incur obligations when the partnership's obligations devolve onto em.
>>
>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
>> This CFJ seems to be FALSE. Why should a member of a partnership
>> incur obligations when the partnership's obligations devolve onto em.
>
> Um, because that's very the definition of
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote:
> This CFJ seems to be FALSE. Why should a member of a partnership
> incur obligations when the partnership's obligations devolve onto em.
Um, because that's very the definition of obligations devolving onto em?
Or how would you define it? -Goethe
This is a very proto judgement, more me speaking my mind on the issues
before I come up with a full judgement. This judgement is known to be
incomplete and potentially incoherent. This will be fixed before real
judging occurs.
> == CFJ 2040 ==
25 matches
Mail list logo
