On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>>However, given the PNP's stated method of acting, it might be quite
>>difficult to return the chits; it would require amending the contract
>>with support from all its members,
>
> ... which can be manifested by a c
Sgeo wrote:
> AI=1.7
> In Rule 1504, replace
> {
> * FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
> When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
> eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
> destruction per question on sentencing, eve
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just don't have time to grok the economy in fullness
i was working on a thesis on the topic but I gave up when the Bank of
Agora collapsed.
root wrote:
> I rather prefer the current decentralization of the economy, which
> lets us experiment with multiple models at once. If players want to
> use Chits as legal tender, they can. Players who have no interest in
> the economy can just ignore it. I don't see a reason that any of this
>
root wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why not repeal extortion?
>
> Why repeal it? It's a legit way to win. I just think that it should
> be AI-2, and the "acting on behalf of Agora" bit is completely
> unnecessary.
It's relevant if Agora e
Ivan Hope wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:14 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I spend Db F Ab to increase Ivan Hope's VVLOD by 1.
>
> Thank you. What for?
Because you were still languishing at 4.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, hey. Anyone else want to support after the fact? Because I CFJ on the
> following statement:
>
> Goethe won by extortion on or about June 7, 2008.
I think you mean July 7.
> Arguments:
>
> The way Support and
2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Pending CFJ :)
Oi, Protection Racket!
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> words
>
> AWESOME.
>
> I support all of Sgeo's attempts to award wins on behalf of Agora.
>
> I just won :3
Pending CFJ :)
2008/7/8 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Rule 2189/0 (Power=2)
> Win by Extortion
>
> Upon a player...
> ^^
As observant as the 3 people before you, I see.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to act on behalf of Agora to award a
>> win to every person.
>
> I support.
Rule 2189/0 (Power=2)
Win by Extortion
Upon a player...
^
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The following players have met the Win condition of Win by Extortion:
>> Sgeo
>> ais523
>> ihope
>> Olipro
>> cctoide
>> root
>>
>
> Me too!
>
> You also paid Goethe 7VP to support but decla
2008/7/7 Olipro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Someone posted a link to it some time in a channel I'm in, actually, I think
> Sgeo found it at that time to by the same means.
>
> Olipro
Sgeo is from IRCNomic/Canada.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Quazie wrote:
>
>> Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows:
>> ---
>> Add the following after point f. within the 6th section of the AAA
>> contract:
>> " g. A fa
Someone posted a link to it some time in a channel I'm in, actually, I think
Sgeo found it at that time to by the same means.
Olipro
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Elliott Hird <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/7 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Welcome Olipro! How'd you find out
On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Quazie wrote:
Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows:
---
Add the following after point f. within the 6th section of the AAA
contract:
" g. A farmer CAN harvest any 4 consecutive numbers and specify
another farmer. As soon as possib
2008/7/7 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Welcome Olipro! How'd you find out about this game?
> -
> Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
> OscarMeyr
>
Sgeo, I think.
tusho
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grah
> AI=1.7
> In Rule 1504, replace
> {
>* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
> When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
> eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform
On Jul 7, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Olipro wrote:
Under the terms of the aforementioned rule, I hereby announce that
I wish to register myself and hereby exist as a "Registered" entity
by declaring that I register and henceforth wish to be known under
the name of 'Olipro'.
Therefore, under Rule
Grah
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
Oops
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
Add some judicial discretion
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, e
Fixing Spear's objections
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Transferring the FINED assets to the Lost & Found Dept is reasonable
> and would permit any contract to be fined.
You can't transfer a fixed asset, but you can destroy it.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
> If the backing document is a rule, than the ninny will always be bound
> by it, I'd assume..
>
Unless the ninny is ehirder, I mean deregistered.
BobTHJ
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies
>> a FINE amount and for which the ninny is bound by the currency's
>> backing document, appr
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would exclude any assets from destruction which are part of a
>> zero-sum system (none at the moment as far as I am aware, but just in
>> case).
>
> Yes
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies
> a FINE amount and for which the ninny is bound by the currency's
> backing document, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
> When in effect, th
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would exclude any assets from destruction which are part of a
> zero-sum system (none at the moment as far as I am aware, but just in
> case).
Yes, I agree that it should only be able to apply to contracts that
allow it, or
Fixing BobTHJ's objections
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, eve
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can the judge really be trusted to specify an arbitrary amount?
Sure, have the appropriateness scale with the amount. Then an
inappropriate amount can be appealed.
-root
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies
>> a FINE amount, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
>>When in effe
Fixing an objection raised by ais523
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on s
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies
>> a FINE amount, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
>>When in effe
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies
> a FINE amount, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
>When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy the
> amount of the specified
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I rather prefer the current decentralization of the economy, which
>> lets us experiment with multiple models at once. If players want to
>> use Chits as legal tender, they can. Players who have no interest in
>> the economy can j
AI=1.7
In Rule 1504, replace
{
* FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.
When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of
eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one
destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought that side of the case was uncontroversial.
I think a determination as to the existence of truth values for
actions is more appropriately achieved by an inquiry case, not an
appeal of a criminal case.
--
Taral <[EMAIL P
> I rather prefer the current decentralization of the economy, which
> lets us experiment with multiple models at once. If players want to
> use Chits as legal tender, they can. Players who have no interest in
> the economy can just ignore it. I don't see a reason that any of this
> needs to be
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Olipro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So, here's some ideas I've been bouncing around in my head;
>
> 1) a Rule declaring the RBoA to be a legal entity and as such, becomes
> responsible for the value of the Chit, whilst at the same time, the Chit
> will forma
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/7 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> As much as it pains me to be loyal to Agora
>
> Fixed that for you.
>
I SWHACK tusho for silliness (Canadian [nomic] in-joke)
Taral wrote:
>required to show that the accused did not believe eir statement to be
>true.
I thought that side of the case was uncontroversial.
-zefram
2008/7/7 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As much as it pains me to be loyal to Agora
Fixed that for you.
comex wrote:
>"Preparing for ostracism" and "One-off ostracism" were protos sent to
>the discussion forum. Proposals 5629-5630 are not by me, but were
>created by Zefram's act of distribution.
Oops. Noted in historical record.
-zefram
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/7/7 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> You have to object to an action *before* it's performed if you want it
>>> to have any effect.
>>>
>>> -roo
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With 2 support I intend to appeal Taral's verdict in CFJ 2048.
> The judge has not referred to the alleged precedent that would make
> a failing speech act merely ineffective rather than untruthful, and I
> think e is mistaken in s
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/7 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> You have to object to an action *before* it's performed if you want it
>> to have any effect.
>>
>> -root
>>
>
> And did it?
And did it what?
-root
ais523 wrote:
>However, given the PNP's stated method of acting, it might be quite
>difficult to return the chits; it would require amending the contract
>with support from all its members,
... which can be manifested by a contract between all the members,
such as an equation regarding the PNP.
-
2008/7/7 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You have to object to an action *before* it's performed if you want it
> to have any effect.
>
> -root
>
And did it?
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to act on behalf of Agora to award a
> win to every person.
You're not a player, and the time frame for performing this action
will expire before you can become one.
-root
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:57 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> With Agoran Consent, I act on behalf of Agora to award myself and all
>> supporters a Win.
> If possible, I object to all of Sgeo's current attempts to act on behalf
> of Agora. (Apparently it's possible to support and oppose the
2008/7/7 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, only players can act on behalf of Agora with Agoran Consent, so
> this probably won't do much good. But I offer moral support.
>
Maybe someone else can try it again tomorrow (Acting on behalf of Agora
is being repealed, but you can still extort
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Corrected win announcement:
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The following players have met the Win condition of Win by
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to act on behalf of Agora to award a
> win to every person.
Well, only players can act on behalf of Agora with Agoran Consent, so
this probably won't do much good. But I offer moral support.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the following votes, UNCONSIDERED is a subtype of AGAINST meaning
> that there are too many proposals at once, and I don't have the time
> to fully consider the proposal's implications. BUGGY is a subtype of
> AGAINST meani
tusho, you're not a player, which rule 1728 requires.
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I request subsidization.
>
Fails, you have 8 lands.
BobTHJ
I'd still like to get the consent of the Vote Market parties for the
below change.
BobTHJ
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Without three objections I intend to make the following cha
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:14 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I spend Db F Ab to increase Ivan Hope's VVLOD by 1.
Thank you. What for?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following players have met the Win condition of Win by Extortion:
> Sgeo
> ais523
> ihope
> Olipro
> cctoide
> root
>
Me too!
You also paid Goethe 7VP to support but declared your win before e had
the chance to do so.
BobTHJ
2008/7/7 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Oops, I missed that it was a Buy Ticket. In that case: since when do
> you have VP, anyway?
>
> -root
>
I posted it as a mistake.
Previously ais523 had agreed that e would reserve the VP e stole from
me for use as I wished, and I was going to use that.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Buy Ticket
>> Cost: 10VP
>> Action: Object to Sgeo's attempt to Win by Extortion and do not
>> retract this objection or support it. This ticket can be
2008/7/7 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Meh. Ultimately I don't care too strongly whether the attempt is
> successful or not. It's just a win, and I don't currently hold MwP,
> so I really have nothing to lose by it.
>
> Since when can non-players object to dependent actions, anyway?
>
> -root
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Buy Ticket
> Cost: 10VP
> Action: Object to Sgeo's attempt to Win by Extortion and do not
> retract this objection or support it. This ticket can be filled
> multiple times.
Meh. Ultimately I don't care too strongly whether
I act on behalf of tusho to cause tusho to take this pledge:
{
I, tusho, pledge not to post any tickets to try to get people to
oppose Sgeo's intent to act on behalf of Agora, nor take any other
action that might have the effect of causing Sgeo's attempt to win by
extortion to fail.}
I act on behal
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Buy Ticket
>> Cost: 10VP
>> Action: Object to Sgeo's attempt to Win by Extortion and do not
>> retract this objection or support it. This ticket can be fill
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Buy Ticket
> Cost: 10VP
> Action: Object to Sgeo's attempt to Win by Extortion and do not
> retract this objection or support it. This ticket can be filled
> multiple times.
>
> tusho
>
I act on behalf of tusho to retract th
Wooble, to fulfill your obligation to me via the Vote Market
agreement, please retract your previous votes and vote FOR x 6 on
proposal #5591.
BobTHJ
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not repeal extortion?
Why repeal it? It's a legit way to win. I just think that it should
be AI-2, and the "acting on behalf of Agora" bit is completely
unnecessary.
-root
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/7 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> E is currently trying to convince Olipro to support it on IRC. If e
>> does, e can spend some VP and win.
>>
>> Eek! A call to action!
>>
>> tusho
>>
>
> Suggestion to all filled
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal titled "Refactor Extortion" (AI=2):
>
> ==
>
> Repeal Rule 2172 (Acting on Behalf of Agora).
>
> Amend Rule 2189 (Win by Extort
2008/7/7 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I submit the following proposal titled "Refactor Extortion" (AI=2):
>
> ==
>
> Repeal Rule 2172 (Acting on Behalf of Agora).
>
> Amend Rule 2189 (Win by Extortion) to read:
>
> A playe
2008/7/7 Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I object to all pending attempts to act on behalf of Agora [if I
> haven't already].
>
> -woggle
>
Thank you.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> E is currently trying to convince Olipro to support it on IRC. If e
>> does, e can spend some VP and win.
>>
>> Eek! A call to action!
>
> I object to
2008/7/7 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> And breach the spirit of the Vote Market?
> --
> ais523
>
You bet.
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 19:03 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/7 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > E is currently trying to convince Olipro to support it on IRC. If e
> > does, e can spend some VP and win.
> >
> > Eek! A call to action!
> >
> > tusho
> >
>
> Suggestion to all filled VPers if
2008/7/7 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> E is currently trying to convince Olipro to support it on IRC. If e
> does, e can spend some VP and win.
>
> Eek! A call to action!
>
> tusho
>
Suggestion to all filled VPers if they don't want this to happen:
Wait until objections come in before doing
E is currently trying to convince Olipro to support it on IRC. If e
does, e can spend some VP and win.
Eek! A call to action!
tusho
Hi,
So, here's some ideas I've been bouncing around in my head;
1) a Rule declaring the RBoA to be a legal entity and as such, becomes
responsible for the value of the Chit, whilst at the same time, the Chit
will formally become legal tender for settlement of all debts public and
private.
2) the
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows:
I proto-object. It's too powerful.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Olipro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Under the terms of the aforementioned rule, I hereby announce that I wish to
> register myself
Welcome to Agora!
> and hereby exist as a "Registered" entity
Welcome to Agora!
> by declaring that
> I register
Welcome to Agora!
>
"Preparing for ostracism" and "One-off ostracism" were protos sent to
the discussion forum. Proposals 5629-5630 are not by me, but were
created by Zefram's act of distribution.
I suppose I will vote for them anyway, though...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Sgeo wrote:
> AI=1.7 II=1
> "Impeachment"
> {
> In rule 1504, between the paragraphs describing the sentences of FINE
> and CHOKEY, add the following paragraph
> {{
> * IMPEACH from an elected office with a duration (the tariff) up to 60
> days multiplied by the power of the h
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> With 2 support I intend to repeal this judgement. This judgement
>> ignores the judgement of CFJ 2014, in which the word 'I' when used in
>> a way such a
Sgeo wrote:
>AI=1.7 II=1
>"Impeachment"
Is this meant to become a proposal? It's not clear.
-zefram
Without 3 proto-objections I proto-change the AAA contract as follows:
---
Add the following after point f. within the 6th section of the AAA contract:
" g. A farmer CAN harvest any 4 consecutive numbers and specify
another farmer. As soon as possible after doing so the SoA shall
select a random,
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With 2 support I intend to repeal this judgement. This judgement
> ignores the judgement of CFJ 2014, in which the word 'I' when used in
> a way such as 'I' was used in the filling of this CFJ leads to an
> ambiguous situation.
'
87 matches
Mail list logo
