Your ruleset annotations have been updated. You will be credited as nch
in all future distributions.
On 7/14/19 3:24 PM, nch wrote:
You're right, I'm rusty. And regrettably the Protonmail IMAP bridge
doesn't have a Linux release yet, so I guess I'll revive this account. I
register with the nam
I award nch a Welcome Package.
On 7/14/2019 2:24 PM, nch wrote:
You're right, I'm rusty. And regrettably the Protonmail IMAP bridge doesn't
have a Linux release yet, so I guess I'll revive this account. I register
with the name nch.
On 7/14/19 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If you were hopi
You're right, I'm rusty. And regrettably the Protonmail IMAP bridge
doesn't have a Linux release yet, so I guess I'll revive this account. I
register with the name nch.
On 7/14/19 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If you were hoping that the cc would register you, it likely doesn't:
actions can onl
In that case, I cause Bernie to receive a welcome package per rule 2499.
Also, Aris covered the replying situation rather well.
--
Trigon
On Sat, Apr 6, 2019, 20:00 Bernie Brackett wrote:
> Bernie is fine. Also, how do I reply to you? I just pressed the reply
> button on gmail, so I'm hoping t
You're right. I wasn't thinking about that, because it's really wealth
distribution, not taxes. I retract "It's death _and_ taxes". Maybe
next week.
-Aris
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> Then, we need to rename the Tax Rate.
>
>
> On 10/22/2017 07:43 PM,
Arkady wrote:
And the thing here is that total votes DO matter. There are Tv = Vf+Va
voters, so if 1 person votes against (i.e. Va = 1) the highest
possible adoption index that could be reached is (T-1). Thus by
setting the adoption index greater than (T-1) a proposal can only pass
unanimously (
On 13 January 2012 22:08, Pavitra wrote:
> On 01/13/2012 04:01 PM, Arkady English wrote:
>> How about we put to the test:
>>
>> CFJ: {The statement "Amend Rule /yy" is equivalent to "Amend Rule
>> IFF its revision number is yy.}
>
> Missing trailing quote.
I withdraw the aforementioned C
How about we put to the test:
CFJ: {The statement "Amend Rule /yy" is equivalent to "Amend Rule
IFF its revision number is yy.}
My arguments: This seems to be the most obvious interpretation.
On 13 January 2012 20:30, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin
On Jul 10, 2008, at 5:52 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Jul 10, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/10 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
This doesn't seem to require that the supporters or objectors of an
amendment to this contract be parties to this contract.
Correct
That being the
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>That being the case, and hoping nobody beat me to it, I propose
>amending the text of ?? to include
>the following paragraph:
>
>ehird, while a member of this contract / pledge, SHALL submit all eir
>actions to ratification by Agoran Co
comex wrote:
>With Agoran Consent, I intend to amend the text of
>? by adding this paragraph:
>
>If ehird is ever a player, any person CAN act on behalf of em to
>deregister em by announcement.
I support.
-zefram
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:29 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 17:35 -0700, Quazie wrote:
>> I post the following Sell Ticket:
>> 1 VP, I will object or support a change to the
>> ?? pledge. This ticket may be filled
>> mutiple times, th
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 17:35 -0700, Quazie wrote:
> I post the following Sell Ticket:
> 1 VP, I will object or support a change to the
> ?? pledge. This ticket may be filled
> mutiple times, though only 1 time per change. This ticket does not
> expire until I say i
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 5:45 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With Agoran Consent, I intend to amend the text of
> ? by adding this paragraph:
>
> If ehird is ever a player, any person CAN act on behalf of em to
> deregister em by announcement.
I object.
--
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 8:45 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That being the case, and hoping nobody beat me to it, I propose amending the
>> text of ?? to include the following
>>
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That being the case, and hoping nobody beat me to it, I propose amending the
> text of ?? to include the following
> paragraph:
>
> ehird, while a member of this contract / pledge, SHALL s
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jul 10, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
>
>> 2008/7/10 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>> This doesn't seem to require that the supporters or objectors of an
>>> amendment to this contract be parties to this co
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That being the case, and hoping nobody beat me to it, I propose amending the
> text of ?? to include the following
> paragraph:
>
> ehird, while a member of this contract / pledge, SHALL s
2008/7/10 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ehird, while a member of this contract / pledge, SHALL submit all eir
> actions to ratification by Agoran Consent; if Agoran Consent is not
> provided, eir action is cancelled.
I object.
Anyone up for VP bribing?
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 17:52 -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
>
> > 2008/7/10 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> This doesn't seem to require that the supporters or objectors of an
> >> amendment to this contract be parties to this contract.
> >>
> >
> >
On Jul 10, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/10 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
This doesn't seem to require that the supporters or objectors of an
amendment to this contract be parties to this contract.
Correct
That being the case, and hoping nobody beat me to it, I propose
amend
21 matches
Mail list logo
