Well, the current contracts rules are very broken. But that's ok! :P
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:21, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> TBH, there's no real reason to disallow 1-member contracts. It doesn't
> make sense under real world contract law, but A
TBH, there's no real reason to disallow 1-member contracts. It doesn't
make sense under real world contract law, but Agoran contracts can
also function like corporations.
-Aris
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:10 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Yeah, the rules need to handle open-ended
Yeah, the rules need to handle open-ended contracts better IMO. Contracts are
written as entities that can gain and lose members at will, but there’s no
clear way to bootstrap a contract.
Gaelan
> On Jan 8, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 a
On 1/1/20 12:47 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> TTtt goddamn PF
>
> Gaelan
NttPF.
--
Jason Cobb
TTtt goddamn PF
Gaelan
> On Dec 31, 2019, at 9:39 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Dec 28, 2019, at 3:43 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official
>> wrote:
>>
>> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
>> Decision of whether to adopt it, and
Gaelan wrote:
8277& G. 1.0 Minor Giveaway
FOR, I’m always up for weird rules-test proposals (see my recent one)
(etc.)
NttPF
> On Dec 28, 2019, at 3:43 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official
> wrote:
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum is 3, t
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 03:46, AIS523--- via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-12-28 at 18:48 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > So, just to be clear here, we’re going to ratify the claim that a-o
> > and a-b stopped being public fora at the start time and resumed being
> >
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote:
Ørjan's issue is that e believes a single ratification can't make
retroactive changes at two different points in past time.
I suppose that's a simple way of putting it, except I'd use "simulate"
instead of "make".
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sat, 2019-12-28 at 18:48 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> So, just to be clear here, we’re going to ratify the claim that a-o
> and a-b stopped being public fora at the start time and resumed being
> public fora at the end time? I’m good with that.
Ørjan's issue is that e beli
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 6:45 PM Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 03:32 +0100, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >> The simplest way I can see to fix th
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote:
On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 03:32 +0100, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
The simplest way I can see to fix this is to pair each dubious email with
its own ratifying document, specifying the date stamp of the message as
the time it
On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 03:32 +0100, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
> Rule 1551 states:
>
>the gamestate is modified
> to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was
> published, the gamestate had been minimal
Rule 1551 states:
the gamestate is modified
to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was
published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the
ratified document as true and accurate as possible; however
14 matches
Mail list logo
