On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quazie wrote:
>
>> So, did CFJ 1 and CFJ 2 in this message actually end up as CFJs?
>
> I left the message in my pending-judicial folder, and will process
> them later depending on the outcome on #3.
>
>
I'm nearly certain #1
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Much of what you've written can be treated as the rights of natural
> persons behind the partnership being preserved, without directly
> claiming rights for partnerships. For example, for fora participation,
> all messages,
Quazie wrote:
> So, did CFJ 1 and CFJ 2 in this message actually end up as CFJs?
I left the message in my pending-judicial folder, and will process
them later depending on the outcome on #3.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1 maybe
> On behalf of Human Point Two I do the following { Human Point Two CFJs
> on the following statement: "This is a CFJ" }
>
> Arguments - by Human Point Two - "By R101 I have the right to submit a
> CFJ which is
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't believe that follows. The fact that publishing of a message
> *is* a game-relevant action does not imply that the message *contains*
> a game-relevant action (a message does not contain its own
> publication, which is
BobTHJ wrote:
> I hereby deputize for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran decisions to
> adopt proposals 5577-5584, exlcuding 5582 which was already resolved
> but is reported here for convenience.
If you're copy+pasting from my web interface, please be warned that I
intend that to be a supplement
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
> For example, R101 (v). If a
> partnership I'm in is forced somehow to agree to a secret contract,
> which imposes obligations to the partnership that devolve onto me, I
> can claim R101 (v) on behalf of the partnership, lest I be indirectly
> bound by a Mousetr
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> What's wrong with allowing partnerships to initiate CFJs anyway?
>> Using them to circumvent Excess. I wouldn't want to loosen up
>> any Excess limitations right
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:07 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Either the contents of this message affect the outcome of a CFJ such as
> 2069, or they don't. In the case that the contents do affect the
> outcome, this means that the publishing of the message itself was a
> game-relevant acti
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R101, when I wrote it, was an experiment in "Agora as a society":
> if we have real persons trying to exist, live or participate in
> a virtual society that preserves, respects, or protects the natural
> rights of its partici
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Using them to circumvent Excess. I wouldn't want to loosen up
>> any Excess limitations right now. -G.
>
> Proto: Players SHALL NOT submit obnoxi
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
>>
>>> Even partnerships should have the right of
>>> participation in the fora
>>
>> Why? Partnerships are a rules-based constructs with no inherent na
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/18 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Why? Partnerships are a rules-based constructs with no inherent natural
>> rights. -Goethe
>
> Being able to post to a-b is not exactly an inherent natural right.
R101, when I wrote it, was an experiment in
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using them to circumvent Excess. I wouldn't want to loosen up
> any Excess limitations right now. -G.
Proto: Players SHALL NOT submit obnoxious CFJs that do not serve to
resolve legitimate matters of controversy. Whenever
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
>
>> Even partnerships should have the right of
>> participation in the fora
>
> Why? Partnerships are a rules-based constructs with no inherent natural
> rights. -Goethe
Because they ot
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> What's wrong with allowing partnerships to initiate CFJs anyway?
>
> Using them to circumvent Excess. I wouldn't want to loosen up
> any Excess limitations right now. -G.
>
Yes,
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> What's wrong with allowing partnerships to initiate CFJs anyway?
Using them to circumvent Excess. I wouldn't want to loosen up
any Excess limitations right now. -G.
2008/7/18 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why? Partnerships are a rules-based constructs with no inherent natural
> rights. -Goethe
Being able to post to a-b is not exactly an inherent natural right.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
> Even partnerships should have the right of
> participation in the fora
Why? Partnerships are a rules-based constructs with no inherent natural
rights. -Goethe
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:15 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Proto-Proposal: Indirect partnership rights
>> (AI = 2, please)
>>
>> Amend Rule 2145 (Partnerships) by appending this text:
>>
>> The ability of a part
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:07 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I call for judgement on the statement {{No matter what their contents,
> all public messages contain at least one game-relevant action}}.
> Either the contents of this message affect the outcome of a CFJ such as
> 2069, or they
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Indirect partnership rights
> (AI = 2, please)
>
> Amend Rule 2145 (Partnerships) by appending this text:
>
> The ability of a partnership's members to exercise rights in eir
> own names shall, prima
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> ehird had already changed eir name to tusho at the time and was not a
>>> player in any case. It is not clear whether the precedent from CFJs
>>> 1703 an
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ehird had already changed eir name to tusho at the time and was not a
>> player in any case. It is not clear whether the precedent from CFJs
>> 1703 and 1361 would still apply in this case.
>>
>> -root
>>
>
> Which is (i believ
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I see no reason for it to have failed. Can you point me to where e
>>> changed it back? I can't find it in my archive.
>>
>> The argument for failure wa
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I see no reason for it to have failed. Can you point me to where e
>> changed it back? I can't find it in my archive.
>
> The argument for failure was that ehird still refered to the old
> ehird, and thus having avpx named ehi
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/7/18 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Because avpx changed eir nickname to ehird. If e's changed it back,
>>> or it was determined to have f
2008/7/18 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I see no reason for it to have failed.
Because I am ehird.
> Can you point me to where e
> changed it back? I can't find it in my archive.
Dunno, someone said e did.
tusho
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/18 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Because avpx changed eir nickname to ehird. If e's changed it back,
>> or it was determined to have failed, I missed that.
>>
>> -root
>>
>
> e changed it back and it probably fai
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [stuff]
> Why was this sent to a-b and not a-o? I thought Ambassador was defined
> in the rules?
>
My mistake. Though I'm not going to re-send it.
BobTHJ
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [stuff]
Why was this sent to a-b and not a-o? I thought Ambassador was defined
in the rules?
2008/7/18 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Because avpx changed eir nickname to ehird. If e's changed it back,
> or it was determined to have failed, I missed that.
>
> -root
>
e changed it back and it probably failed
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
>> The Registrar's report should self-ratify IMO, as it's probably the
>> report in which a mistake can cause the largest chaos to the gamestate.
>
> Well given that the July 4 report is s
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 10:42 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The II of a proposal should serve as a flag to get people to look at it;
> > I can certainly imagine that some players won't have time to look at all
> > the proposals,
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The II of a proposal should serve as a flag to get people to look at it;
> I can certainly imagine that some players won't have time to look at all
> the proposals, in which case they should look at those with the highest
> II.
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 22:00 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Why should II matter at all?
> >
> > It's an objective acknowledgment of the significance of the proposed
> > changes. IIRC, a proposal to return to a straight Disi
36 matches
Mail list logo
