Michael Slone wrote:
The default time limit for a collective action is
(a) fourteen days, if the action is not the adoption of a
proposal; or
(b) forever and a day, if the action is the adoption of a
proposal.
Suggest that you make (a) be the default, and then
On 5/21/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A couple years back I floated something similar, Steve's comment was
how do we keep our proposal numbering system straight, it's a
substantial historical series. Not that it's a bad idea, but
it's worth pondering. I think the formal
On 5/21/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These two don't work together. (d) only makes sense if you're applying
these conditions at (or after) the end of the voting period. (e) needs
to be applied at the time the vote is cast.
I was hoping people wouldn't notice that they lose *all* their
Zefram wrote:
You use the term Speakership in several places where strictly you
should say Speaker. (Speakership is not defined; in your terminology
Speaker refers to the office.) You also speak of a player *being*
the Speaker, where you should apply the strict distinction that a player
Ed Murphy wrote:
(If either #2 or #3 is judged true, and HP3 through HP14 are players,
then by CFJ 1652 they were eligible voters on Proposals 4958-69, which
thus failed quorum. Naturally, the attempt to legislate #1 is part of
the affected batch, specifically Proposal 4964.)
I think we're close
On 5/21/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex, what do you make of the present CFJ situation?
There are three ways to resolve it that I can see:
1. No matter what passed or didn't pass, as long as some players
announce that they become sitting down I can publish a Notice of
Rotation
comex wrote:
4977 D 1.1 BobTHJ Formalize Partnerships
FOR (does well without excess verbiage)
I think it does really badly by not saying enough on many issues,
and badly again by saying too much on the issues it does cover.
The corporate-style model of identity that it legislates brings
comex wrote:
1. No matter what passed or didn't pass, as long as some players
announce that they become sitting down
We definitely don't have the concept of sitting at the moment, and
until voting results on P4965 are published. At that point we acquire
the concept if the proposal passed and
On Monday 21 May 2007 8:00 pm, comex wrote:
ineligibility depends on
having been turned at the time the CFJ was called.
Actually, I realize this opens another option: a new player was not turned at
the time, and so is certainly eligible. Therefore, a new player (a
partnership that delegated
comex wrote:
Actually, I realize this opens another option: a new player was not turned at
the time, and so is certainly eligible.
Not trivially so. I'm not sure that the turnedness of a non-player
is clear. But I'll go with that plan.
Don't assign anything to Yin Corp or Yang Corp. Their
I don't see what enjoyment y'all get out of making stacks of puppets.
I know that the puppets vary slightly, but I fail to see the interest
in any of this.
In any case, it's too meta for me, and *I'm* a mathematician.
Your pal,
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
I blame these homology functors
comex wrote:
I submit the following set of linked CFJs (largely redundant to each other and
to previous CFJs):
I think they're entirely redundant with prior CFJs, except for the
question of what the name Yin Corp actually refers to now. Initially it
referred to a partnership of Zefram and
On 5/21/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
R955 curiously does not simply describe a mathematical recipe
Why is it curious? pythonomic and other formal nomics are that way --
-- _
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) _/ \_/| - TOWNSVILLE
To read this
Zefram wrote:
That's all the yin/yang activity we have planned. For the record,
all changes of membership of both partnerships have taken place in the
public forum. The present membership is:
* of Yin Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp
* of Yang Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp
Or at least, that's the
comex wrote:
I assign CFJs 1666-8 to The Hanging Judge. E is still turned.
Text at:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-May/006418.html
I encourage Zefram and Murphy to submit psuedojudgements.
I interpret a partnership's identity, not merely as the set
Ambiguous eligibility can be resolved by making the relevant players
turned (lying down) without 2 objections, and/or inactive without
objection. (This does nothing for the bug pointed out by fix
judicial turns, though.)
16 matches
Mail list logo
