1. Each first-class party to this equation (the first-class members of
the CFJ 1915 equation at the time CFJ 1927 was called), with the
exception of comex, CAN, during the 30 days following this equation
becoming binding, specify one Agoran Decision with two or more days
remaining before its
On 5/1/08, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. After this equation has been binding for 30 days or after all
eligible parties have specified Agoran Decisions on which comex shall
vote, IF AND ONLY IF Comex has fulfilled all eir obligations in #2,
the Broker CAN and SHALL create 50 VP in
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:08 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/1/08, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. After this equation has been binding for 30 days or after all
eligible parties have specified Agoran Decisions on which comex shall
vote, IF AND ONLY IF Comex has
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't the entire equity court system in violation of our R101 rights
by forcing a contract upon possibly un-willing parties?
I don't think so. Part of making an agreement with the intention
that it be binding ... and
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:08 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/1/08, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. After this equation has been binding for 30 days or after all
eligible parties have specified
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:08 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/1/08, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. After this equation has been binding for 30 days or after all
eligible parties have specified Agoran Decisions on which comex shall
vote, IF AND ONLY IF Comex has
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With the consent of the SoA and the majority consent of the other
farmers, I intend to make the following changes to the AAA contract.
Replace this text:
{
4. Each type of Crop is a currency. Ownership of Crops is
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:07 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/1/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still need two more consenting Farmers to make this change. Anyone?
I consent
You've already consented...
-root
Goethe wrote:
Appeal 1925a
Panelist: Goethe
Panelist: Wooble
Panelist: Pavitra
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't the entire equity court system in violation of our R101 rights
by forcing a contract upon possibly un-willing parties?
I don't think so. Part of making an agreement with the
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
That's a good point. I was sort of thinking of the equation as an
extension of the Vote Market agreement, but it's clearly a different
document and thus not the backing document for VP.
The equation is a new agreement, but all members of the old
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
so in fact, the a CAN applied by the judge (the new agreement) couldn't
overrule the earlier CAN in the contract (though that was before CAN and
SHOULD were clearly split). If this clause were still in the Rules,
equity would be broken.
I should point
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
Appeal 1925a
Panelist: Goethe
Panelist:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Best fix: explicitly allow (in the Rules) equity decisions to modify the
state (existence and ownership) of any asset whose backing document is the
contract in question.
I'm not sure this is really necessary, since the
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with you on R101 rights. But it's more than that, it's mechanism.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I was only addressing the general
question of R101 rights as they pertain to equity cases, not the
question of this
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Panelist Goethe's Arguments:
I intend, with Wooble and Pavitra's support, to send the following
message from this panel:
This panel REMANDS this case to Iammars that e may find
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
Note though that this interpretation would fail for pledges and
contests, which can't necessarily be changed by unanimous agreement
between the members.
Rule 2169 has precedence over Rule 2198. -G.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
Appeal 1925a
Panelist: Goethe
Panelist:
Goethe wrote:
The preamble isn't part of the arguments (wasn't sent on behalf of the
panel). -Goethe
Fixed in the database. (Also fixed the PHP code so that e.g. 1897
translates OVERRULE/TRUE to OVERRULED to TRUE on Appeal.)
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Best fix: explicitly allow (in the Rules) equity decisions to modify the
state (existence and ownership) of any asset whose backing document is the
contract in question.
I'm
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
Note though that this interpretation would fail for pledges and
contests, which can't necessarily be changed by unanimous agreement
between the members.
Rule 2169 has precedence
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
So? Rule 2169 makes no claim that it can modify existing contracts.
That interpretation depends upon Rule 2198.
The interpretation of R2169 governs whether a new judicial contract is
seen as a change to the original, with higher precedence than types of
Goethe wrote:
Due to the LAND GRAB pledge, Goethe is the recordkeeper for the types of
crops currencies referenced by the Agoran Agricultural Association contract.
While LAND GRAB refers to the AAA, it doesn't explicitly assert the
statement of the CFJ, so the precedent of CFJs 1922-23 should
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The interpretation of R2169 governs whether a new judicial contract is
seen as a change to the original, with higher precedence than types of
contract changes governed by R2198.
The only way that makes sense to me for
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Previously (1742/4), one binding agreement (a new one) couldn't
automatically overrule an earlier one:
Nothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the
enforcement of an agreement which requires a
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement:
Due to the LAND GRAB pledge, Goethe is the recordkeeper for the types of
crops currencies referenced by the Agoran Agricultural Association contract.
Arguments: Two contracts conflict
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1933
== CFJ 1933 ==
Due to the LAND GRAB pledge, Goethe is the recordkeeper for the
types of crops
root wrote:
Oh, coolness. Here I've been arguing against this without even
realizing I was assigned as judge.
Yay for the CotC's discretionary power, which allows me to do things
like assign this to you (since you judged the similar 1922-23).
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
Arguments against:
There are multiple persons who have agreed to the Agoran Agricultural
Association contract but not to the LAND GRAB pledge, and at least one
of those (me) refuses to agree to any part of the LAND GRAB pledge.
Therefore, a redefinition
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
root wrote:
Oh, coolness. Here I've been arguing against this without even
realizing I was assigned as judge.
Yay for the CotC's discretionary power, which allows me to do things
like assign this to you (since you judged the similar 1922-23).
I think
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't really expect my scam to work, but I don't think your argument
here works either. Reason: there's nothing in this argument to say
why the AAALG instead of LGAAA and without that, the reverse could
be said
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
I don't think it does. The AAA creates a legal fiction of crops that
all of its members agree to. The LG creates a different legal fiction
of crops that all of its members agree to. The two sets of members
are totally disjoint, so in fact there is no
On Thu, 1 May 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
If we instead interpret the equation as an agreement to *change* the
original contract, we have none of these problems. It just doesn't
generally work for pledges and contests.
Heh, we're arguing while agreeing again. Fun anyway! ;)
I just wrote a
33 matches
Mail list logo
