pikhq wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 20:36:19 comex wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
Do you even pay *attention* to the weekly report on VVLOPs?
At the top of the message I gave the AFO a VVLOP. I suppose overvoting is
annoying; I might need to get out of the hab
On Friday 14 December 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007 20:36:19 comex wrote:
> > On Friday 14 December 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > > Do you even pay *attention* to the weekly report on VVLOPs?
> >
> > At the top of the message I gave the AFO a VVLOP. I suppose
> > o
On Friday 14 December 2007 20:36:19 comex wrote:
> On Friday 14 December 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > Do you even pay *attention* to the weekly report on VVLOPs?
>
> At the top of the message I gave the AFO a VVLOP. I suppose overvoting is
> annoying; I might need to get out of the habit of
On Friday 14 December 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> Do you even pay *attention* to the weekly report on VVLOPs?
At the top of the message I gave the AFO a VVLOP. I suppose overvoting is
annoying; I might need to get out of the habit of it.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signe
On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the voting period on that
> decision does not end within the next 48 hours, the party who posted
> the Sell Ticket is OBLIGATED to ensure that all valid votes e casts on
> that decision at the end of its voting period are the same as was
> sp
On Dec 14, 2007 3:07 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
> > The advantage to being a party to a contract is the security granted
> > by that contract. I've never supported granting players extra rights
> > just for making contracts, which is effectively what partnerships do.
On 12/14/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alternative: continue to allow partnerships to initiate CFJs, thereby
> not creating conflict with R101. But make their entire bases
> inelegible to judge.
>
My quality judge assignment proposal would have handled this elegantly
without revokin
root wrote:
The advantage to being a party to a contract is the security granted
by that contract. I've never supported granting players extra rights
just for making contracts, which is effectively what partnerships do.
What was/is your take on Groups?
Eris wrote:
On 12/14/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eris wrote:
On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
7. Any player may join the Vote Market by announcement. Upon joining
the Vote Market, 50 VP are created in the possession of that player.
First class?
A partnership
comex wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
The party who posted the Sell
Ticket is then OBLIGATED to cast all eir votes on that decision in the
same manner as specified by the party who filled the Sell Ticket, but
only if the voting period on that decision does not end within t
On Dec 14, 2007 2:23 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R101 is worded (IMO) such that the change would not be blocked, but
> non-first-class persons would be able to CFJ anyway, making the rule
> broken.
Overruled, not broken.
> Plus, I support partnerships' rights. :) If partnerships are "n
On Friday 14 December 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
> > But I seem to be in the minority with this opinion... I suppose you
> > could argue that the only advantages partnerships ought to have are
> > those that occur only when the members are in agreement, such as being
> > able to more eff
On 12/14/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eris wrote:
>
> > On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 7. Any player may join the Vote Market by announcement. Upon joining
> >> the Vote Market, 50 VP are created in the possession of that player.
> >
> > First class?
>
> A pa
Eris wrote:
On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
7. Any player may join the Vote Market by announcement. Upon joining
the Vote Market, 50 VP are created in the possession of that player.
First class?
A partnership could welsh on an agreement by dissolving, but only if
someone
On Friday 14 December 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> The party who posted the Sell
> Ticket is then OBLIGATED to cast all eir votes on that decision in the
> same manner as specified by the party who filled the Sell Ticket, but
> only if the voting period on that decision does not end within the
> next
comex wrote:
But I seem to be in the minority with this opinion... I suppose you could
argue that the only advantages partnerships ought to have are those that
occur only when the members are in agreement, such as being able to more
efficiently spend VCs. Hmm...
Requiring even passive agree
On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 7. Any player may join the Vote Market by announcement. Upon joining
> the Vote Market, 50 VP are created in the possession of that player.
First class?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can giv
On Friday 14 December 2007, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007 12:02 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > comex wrote:
> > >It purports to limit the R101 right of persons to initiate CFJs.
> >
> > A partnership can still effectively initiate CFJs via its first-class
> > person members. I beli
On Dec 14, 2007 12:02 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >It purports to limit the R101 right of persons to initiate CFJs.
>
> A partnership can still effectively initiate CFJs via its first-class
> person members. I believe this satisfies the R101 right.
That's what I was thi
comex wrote:
>It purports to limit the R101 right of persons to initiate CFJs.
A partnership can still effectively initiate CFJs via its first-class
person members. I believe this satisfies the R101 right.
-zefram
On 12/14/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A proposal that fixes several judicial loopholes and does nothing else
> is terrible?
It purports to limit the R101 right of persons to initiate CFJs.
I don't mind the rest of the fixes, if they are proposed separately.
On Dec 14, 2007 10:51 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 5358 D1 2Murphy 1 is 1
> AGAINST - what is an associated number?
A number associated with the player. The proposal makes perfect sense
if you read it in the context of the rule it is amending.
> > 5371 O1 1.7 Zefram
22 matches
Mail list logo
