On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems incredibly unlikely that when entering into a contract with
someone who's breached as many contracts as ehird has ais523
reasonably expected em to abide by the terms of the contract. Affairs
proceded exactly
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, comex wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems incredibly unlikely that when entering into a contract with
someone who's breached as many contracts as ehird has ais523
reasonably expected em to abide by the terms of the
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Indeed. It could be said that the purpose of *any* contract is to
enforce trust in cases where people aren't inherently trustworthy.
The problem in a case like this is that there's no way for the equity
court to
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Indeed. It could be said that the purpose of *any* contract is to
enforce trust in cases where people aren't inherently trustworthy.
The problem in a case like this is that
On Jan 25, 2009, at 10:30 PM, comex wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Geoffrey Spear
geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I publish 98 NoVs, replacing X below with each of P2 - P98:
comex violated Rule 1742 (power 2) by violating the X contract by
causing X to register with the same basis as
On Jan 26, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Taral wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk
wrote:
Note that the intent of the proposal was that contesting NoVs due
to a
belief that their punishment is unjust is valid, and a reasonable
use of
contestment. There is also
On Jan 26, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 23:26 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
Wooble wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 8:28 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear
geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
comex violated R2158 (power 2) by
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
I deregister.
-root
With all these deregistrations going around, I'm sure people would be
severely disappointed if I didn't deregister as well. Therefore, I
hereby invoke my R101 right.
--Warrigal Specifically, Paragraph
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Warrigal wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement: If the Rules specify that a player is
to receive a Note for performing a required (i.e. a SHALL) action, and e
fails to perform it, the withholding of the Note is, for the purposes of
R101(vi), a penalty for breaking the
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Gratuitous argument: If withholding a reward for an action not
performed is a punishment, we're all constantly being punished for
doing something we are not obligated to not do.
You're missing the key point that I'm
Proposal 6065 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by comex
Rebellion
A Rebellious Player is a Player who cast all eir valid votes FOR this
proposal.
Destroy all Rests held by Rebellious Players.
I should have gone Inactive before this distribution so that I could
vacuously be considered
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Warrigal wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Gratuitous argument: If withholding a reward for an action not
performed is a punishment, we're all constantly being punished for
doing something we are not obligated to not do.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Having such an explanation laid out and discussed was the purpose of this
CFJ, but you can't (or at least shouldn't) dismiss it quite so simply.
Sorry, I was under the impression that I was agreeing with you when I said
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Warrigal wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Having such an explanation laid out and discussed was the purpose of this
CFJ, but you can't (or at least shouldn't) dismiss it quite so simply.
Sorry, I was under the impression
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Why? If the two are in the same currency (+1 note versus -2 notes), what's
the difference for R101, which must consider any sort of penalty (note:
penalty not punishment). If I don't get my note I've certainly been
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Why? If the two are in the same currency (+1 note versus -2 notes), what's
the difference for R101, which must consider any sort of penalty (note:
penalty not punishment).
16 matches
Mail list logo
