DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8490-8492
Humiliated by the prospect of the Assessor having to publish another Humiliating Reminder, I vote as follows: > On Aug 23, 2020, at 4:55 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-official > wrote: > > ID Author(s)AITitle > --- > 8490* Jason3.0 Functional Emergency Regulations ENDORSE Jason > 8491f^ ATMunn 2.0 Minor Speaker fix ENDORSE ATMunn > 8492*^ Jason3.0 Unscoped RWO ENDORSE Jason Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: [@Treasuror?] Re: BUS: [Contract] Proofs of Claim
On 8/29/2020 1:41 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > On 8/29/2020 4:40 PM, ATMunn wrote: >> On 8/29/2020 4:32 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >>> (I don't see any evidence that "file a proof of claim" is a >>> term of art). >> >> Doesn't matter - the contract said it was a thing that could be done. It says it can be done by announcement. Announcements require specifications, which you haven't given. For example, R991 says that you can call a CFJ specifying the statement to be inquired into, by announcement. If I say "I call a CFJ specifying a statement to inquire into" then I actually haven't done so, even though the rule literally says that. >> (To be honest though - I completely see where you're coming from and you >> very much might be right. I just had to try it.) Totally agree! I'm not sure either. > Feel free to CFJ - I'm not going to because I want my 10 coins :P > I'm not going to either at least not this minute, but I will CoE any report on it. :P -G.
Re: DIS: Re: [@Treasuror?] Re: BUS: [Contract] Proofs of Claim
On 8/29/2020 4:40 PM, ATMunn wrote: On 8/29/2020 4:32 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: (I don't see any evidence that "file a proof of claim" is a term of art). Doesn't matter - the contract said it was a thing that could be done. (To be honest though - I completely see where you're coming from and you very much might be right. I just had to try it.) Feel free to CFJ - I'm not going to because I want my 10 coins :P -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary and Speaker of Agora :)
Re: DIS: Re: [@Treasuror?] Re: BUS: [Contract] Proofs of Claim
On 8/29/2020 4:32 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: (I don't see any evidence that "file a proof of claim" is a term of art). Doesn't matter - the contract said it was a thing that could be done. (To be honest though - I completely see where you're coming from and you very much might be right. I just had to try it.) -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary and Speaker of Agora :)
DIS: Re: [@Treasuror?] Re: BUS: [Contract] Proofs of Claim
On 8/29/2020 1:13 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > On 8/24/2020 5:00 PM, ATMunn wrote: >> On 8/24/2020 4:56 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: >>> Contract: Proofs of Claim >>> >>> Any player CAN, with notice, file a proof of a claim of a valid >>> judgement. The first player to do so CAN once act on Aris's behalf to >>> transfer 10 coins from Aris to emself; immediately thereafter, this >>> contract is destroyed. >>> >> >> idk what this is supposed to be but >> >> I intend to, with notice, file a proof of claim of a valid judgement. >> > > Having given sufficient notice, I do so. That's ISID - where's the proof and where's the claim and what's the valid judgement? (I don't see any evidence that "file a proof of claim" is a term of art). > I act on behalf of Aris to transfer 10 coins from Aris to myself.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8494-8495
I vote FOR both proposals On 8/29/20 12:14 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it, > and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector > is the Assessor, the quorum is 3, the voting method is AI-majority, and the > valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > conditional votes). > > ID Author(s)AITitle > --- > 8494l^ Gaelan 1.0 nope > 8495*^ Gaelan 3.0 nopenopenope > > > Legend: * : Democratic proposal. > # : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber. > e : Economy ministry proposal. > f : Efficiency ministry proposal. > j : Justice ministry proposal. > l : Legislation ministry proposal. > p : Participation ministry proposal. > ^ : Sponsored proposal. > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where > the information shown below differs from the information shown above, > the information shown above shall control. > > // > ID: 8494 > Title: nope > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Gaelan > Co-authors: > > > Repeal rule 2633. > > // > ID: 8495 > Title: nopenopenope > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Gaelan > Co-authors: > > > Repeal rule 2633. > > //
