Ed Murphy wrote:
is insufficient reason for a REVERSE; if the new judge justifies Eris's
claim and once again judges TRUE, then the goal can still be reached by
ITYM FALSE here.
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
I call for appeal of Primo's judgement of CFJ 1694. Arguments:
[snip]
This case has similarities to CFJ 1704. In that case, concerning Primo
Corporation, the judge ruled that the possibility of direct modification
of Primo's charter by the adoption of an Agoran proposal
Ed Murphy wrote:
Gunneran rule 358 copies Agoran Rule 106's force of law to Gunner
in exactly the same fashion as Primo charter section 1 copies it
to Primo.
No it doesn't. Primo charter section 1 gives Agoran law the capacity
to modify Primo by the statement
This is a binding Agreement
Zefram wrote:
No it doesn't. Primo charter section 1 gives Agoran law the capacity
to modify Primo by the statement
This is a binding Agreement governed by the Rules of Agora.
You have the habit of presenting as facts statements which are based
on dubious Rules readings and arguable
Kerim Aydin wrote:
I would say the above agreement, which is *exactly* how agreements
were used in the past, would not be bound by a change-by-proposal.
I've been assuming that the hypothetical agreement-changing proposal
modifies (or otherwise overrides) rule 101 if it would get in the way.
That
Zefram wrote:
I've been assuming that the hypothetical agreement-changing proposal
modifies (or otherwise overrides) rule 101 if it would get in the way.
That would require a higher AI than is otherwise needed, of course.
Ah, I see where you're coming from. May need a power-4 proposal,
to
6 matches
Mail list logo
