Levi Stephen wrote:
> The annotation shall be the Statement
> of the CFJ and the judgement of that CFJ.
I prefer the feature of the present arrangement that the body of the
annotation is a well-formed sentence which is to be interpreted as true.
So for CFJs that are j
Ed Murphy wrote:
> A partnership's basis is the set containing its natural-person
> members, plus each member of the basis of each of its
> non-natural-person members.
Yay. This is the right way to do it.
The reason your original "Limited Partnerships" proposal failed to prevent
a
Ed Murphy wrote:
> The Registrar's report shall include the following:
...
> c) Whether each player is active or inactive, and the date on
> which eir status last changed.
I dislike this. I think the reporting requirement for activity should go
where activity is defined, in rule
Ed Murphy wrote:
> (d) the action would, as part of its effect, make it impossible
> to make arbitrary modifications to the rules by any
> combinations of actions by players, and/or impossible to
> adopt proposals within a four-week period; or
I'm not clear on how d
Ed Murphy wrote:
> The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for
> receiving and distributing Civil CFJs and Appeals.
I don't see the justification for separating these from General CFJs.
-zefram
proto-proposal: discretionary annotations only
{{{
Vacate all orders requiring the rulekeepor to annotate rules.
Repeal rule 789.
Amend rule 1681 by deleting the text ", and must also include any
annotations to the rule required by order".
}}}
-zefram
On 6/6/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I write "Kallisti" on the back of 1 Share of Primo Corporation,
then transfer it to Eris.
I attempt to eat 1 Share of Primo Corporation, but it doesn't taste
very good. Whatever happened to using apples?
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me
On 6/7/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Limited Partnerships, take fifteen
Amend Rule 2144 (Limited Partnerships) to read:
A partnership's basis is the set containing its natural-person
members, plus each member of the basis of each of its
non-natur
Taral wrote:
>Very good. Now just identify them and we'll avoid any issues.
We voted against that already: proposals 4973 and 4974.
-zefram
On 6/7/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Taral wrote:
>Very good. Now just identify them and we'll avoid any issues.
We voted against that already: proposals 4973 and 4974.
Sorry, math "identify" - make equal.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble
On 6/7/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bob's Quality Cards is a partnership and binding agreement created under the
laws of the state of Colorado. The partners of Bob's Quality Cards are
myself (BobTHJ / Roger Hicks) and a close personal friend John Chapman. The
terms of our partnershi
On 6/7/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/7/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob's Quality Cards is a partnership and binding agreement created under
the
> laws of the state of Colorado. The partners of Bob's Quality Cards are
> myself (BobTHJ / Roger Hicks) and a close pe
On 6/7/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Parachutenear Grand Junction on the west slope. It's a great state to
live in :)
Ah. My girlfriend is currently working as an intern for the Palisade
Tribune, so I'll be passing through that area next weekend.
-root
On 6/7/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bob's Quality Cards creates an infinite number of Primo Corporation shares.
Since you're new here, you probably don't know this yet, but
attempting to duplicate a scam that has already been attempted is Not
Done.
Also, without special coaxing,
On 6/7/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since you're new here, you probably don't know this yet, but
attempting to duplicate a scam that has already been attempted is Not
Done.
Apparently this doesn't include the "Deregister and Lurk Dourly" scam. =)
-root
comex wrote:
>I hereby change myself from lying down to sitting.
No you don't: you were already standing as a result of proposal 4991.
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
(d) the action would, as part of its effect, make it impossible
to make arbitrary modifications to the rules by any
combinations of actions by players, and/or impossible to
adopt proposals within a four-week period; or
I'm not cle
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for
receiving and distributing Civil CFJs and Appeals.
I don't see the justification for separating these from General CFJs.
CotC is a fairly busy office. This splits it up a bit - not all that
m
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
A partnership's basis is the set containing its natural-person
members, plus each member of the basis of each of its
non-natural-person members.
Yay. This is the right way to do it.
The reason your original "Limited Partnerships" proposal failed
comex wrote:
I hereby change myself from lying down to sitting.
As Clerk of the Courts, you were initialized to standing.
comex wrote:
Technically the first Timing Orders are invalid as I am not required to
recuse...
You are if the Overtime Period has expired (Rule 408), which I believe
it has for all of the CFJs in that list.
I issue a Notice of Rotation.
CFJs not eligible to be assigned: CFJ 1676, CFJ 1685, C
Ed Murphy wrote:
>It excludes them from this clause of Rule 101:
I think that's not enough for the intended effect. Please rewrite in
stronger form.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Note to those still lying down: you're allowing the rest of us to
>earn more VCs in return for the extra workload.
Oh don't encourage them. They never judged on time (to earn VCs) anyway.
-zefram
Really what I was attempting to do here is test partnerships that include a
person who is not a player (which AFAIK has not been done). The Primo shares
thing was silly one-upmanship made primarily in jest...as I didn't expect it
to fly.
BobTHJ
On 6/7/07, Michael Slone < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Really what I was attempting to do here is test partnerships that include a
>person who is not a player (which AFAIK has not been done).
You should have tried this under Agoran law. We have the new provision
that non-players can be parties to R1742 agreements, but the rules as
Ed Murphy wrote:
>CotC is a fairly busy office. This splits it up a bit - not all that
>much
Not enough, I think. By volume, Civil CFJs (a misnomer, btw: it's
distinctly a criminal procedure, whereas General CFJs are civil in
nature) and Appeals make up a very small proportion of the workload.
I
Michael Slone wrote:
>In any case, I don't understand why y'all seem to think that someone
>not party to an agreement can modify properties which essentially
>supervene on that agreement.
The agreement's wording leaves this an open matter. It says "Shares are
property owned by Agoran Players.", w
On 6/7/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Too vague. There are many infinite numbers (indeed, an infinite number
of them), and you didn't specify which one.
As has been pointed out already, the term ``number'' means ``real
number'' in Agoran discourse, and every real number is finite.
--
C
On 6/7/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Really what I was attempting to do here is test partnerships that include
a
>person who is not a player (which AFAIK has not been done).
You should have tried this under Agoran law. We have the new provision
that non-players can
On 6/7/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While we have a great tradition of not being speciesist regarding
personhood (CFJ 1614 et al), the phrase "root's keyboard" proposes
What tradition?
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
Well, it's succinct, at least.
-- Kelly, in agora-di
On 6/7/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It excludes them from this clause of Rule 101:
ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is
not regulated.
People often have the capability to do things they have no right to do.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Sl
On Thursday 07 June 2007, Zefram wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
> >CotC is a fairly busy office. This splits it up a bit - not all that
> >much
>
> Not enough, I think. By volume, Civil CFJs (a misnomer, btw: it's
> distinctly a criminal procedure, whereas General CFJs are civil in
> nature) and Appea
BobTHJ wrote:
> It seems that a foriegn company would be recognized
> within a nationality and be forced to abide by that nationalities
> laws while operating within such a nationality.
Interestingly, the previous version of the text required that the
agreement be made with the intention (of tho
comex wrote:
Or just modify Rule 591 to require judgements be published, so I can
continue letting Murphy do the latter. :)
Has anyone ever submitted a CFJ privately to the CotC?
Zefram wrote:
> (a misnomer, btw: it's
> distinctly a criminal procedure, whereas General CFJs are civil in
> nature)
Not quite. The civil CFJ is set up as a civil court, with the
judge's ability to assess damages for Agreement violations in
R1742(i)-(iii) is a specifically Civil procedure, and
35 matches
Mail list logo
