On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
6402 D 1 3.0 woggle Regulating Act-on-Behalf
AGAINST. This should allow Private contracts to do so as well (if
the contract detail is published when the act is performed).
Otherwise, we'd just make zoop
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:50 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that would work as it would require acting on behalf to
create the public contract.
The parties to a contract can agree to it secretly and have it become
a public contract upon one of them publishing the contract and a
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, comex wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
6402 D 1 3.0 woggle Regulating Act-on-Behalf
AGAINST. This should allow Private contracts to do so as well (if
the contract detail is published when the act is performed).
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 09:35 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
AGAINST. This should allow Private contracts to do so as well (if
the contract detail is published when the act is performed).
Otherwise, we'd just make zoop around it with some weirdness like in
this private contract, the contractees
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:50 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that would work as it would require acting on behalf to
create the public contract.
The parties to a contract can agree to it secretly and have it become
a public contract
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 09:35 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
AGAINST. This should allow Private contracts to do so as well (if
the contract detail is published when the act is performed).
Otherwise, we'd just make zoop around it with some weirdness like in
this
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:17 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I have at least one private contract with a trigger that does exactly
that. I think in this case, needing such a trigger is a good thing, so
that everyone knows the details of the actions that are being taken; why
require simultaneous
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
Ah yes; my trigger publicises the whole contract. Doing it with portions
wouldn't necessarily be too difficult, though; you only need one slave
contract, which can be amended to add
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
Ah yes; my trigger publicises the whole contract. Doing it with portions
wouldn't necessarily be too difficult, though; you only need one slave
contract, which can be amended to add parties actions as
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:19 PM, C-walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
As per our private contract, I act on behalf of Lynn Shawcroft to
announce that e registers.
Can you please provide information sufficient to contact em?
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 10:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Evidence: the quote above.
Arguments: The issue here is about how much evidence needs to be given
for act-on-behalf to work. Contracts can
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
Suppose one
player acts on behalf of another claiming that a secret contract (which
the second is party to, but the first isn't) allows them to. The second
player cannot then object without revealing information that e is
contractually obligated to keep
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:20 PM, C-walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm treating this as ineffective (game custom to the contrary
notwithstanding), and I publish an NoV alleging that C-walker violated
the
Wooble wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:20 PM, C-walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm treating this as ineffective (game custom to the contrary
notwithstanding), and I publish an NoV alleging that C-walker
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Elliott
Hirdpenguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
I vote for Goethe in the Grand Poobah election.
Apparently 4 notes can't buy nickname respect :P
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I deputize for the IADoP to accept coppro's recent COE: I believe the
report was in error, and coppro is the Grand Poobah.
I don't, and I judged the relevant CFJ. The existence of the election in
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I deputize for the IADOP to initiate an Agoran Decision to determine the
new officeholder of the Grand Poobah office. The eligible voters are the
active first-class players. The valid options are
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 15:02 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think, that even if I was self-ratified as Holding the Office, the
election itself was never completed if the decision wasn't started,
therefore the IADoP was still required to start it. E.g., even if
the state of Goethe =
G. wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 15:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 11:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I deputize for the IADOP to initiate an Agoran Decision to determine the
new officeholder of the Grand
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 15:36 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
I disagree, I think; AFAICT, the election can only be resolved by
deputisation at this point (and it makes sense to intend to deputise for
it now, in case there's a tie). To me, the implication is
2009/7/6 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Elliott
Hirdpenguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
I vote for Goethe in the Grand Poobah election.
Apparently 4 notes can't buy nickname respect :P
Oops.
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 19:47 -0400, comex wrote:
I intend, without objection, to ratify the following incorrect document:
{ The office of Grand Poobah is empty. There are no ongoing elections
for the office of Grand Poobah or decisions to determine a new
officeholder for that office. }
The
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:05 PM, ais523callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
If we really want to end the ambiguity, then G. can resign and coppro
can take the office as Default Officeholder. That may not be the best
way out of the issue, though.
That wouldn't resolve the ambiguity pertaining to
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 19:10 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I resign the office of IADoP.
I assume the office of IADoP.
In the current climate, assuming anything about offices tends to be a
bad idea.
--
ais523
ais523 wrote:
Cretans doesn't hold here, the rule doesn't claim precedence over
itself. (Maybe it should be generalised to all self-contradictions?) The
current holder here is interesting; my reading is holder at the time
of vote collecting. It doesn't seem ridiculously counter-common-sense
Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
Cretans doesn't hold here, the rule doesn't claim precedence over
itself. (Maybe it should be generalised to all self-contradictions?) The
current holder here is interesting; my reading is holder at the time
of vote collecting. It doesn't seem ridiculously
On 7/6/09 10:06 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[snip]
That aside, it's a more general issue. Let's say I have a detailed
private contract with all sorts of economic and political manipulations.
One small part of that is an act on behalf of. When it happens,
all the public needs to know is that the
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 21:40 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
Cretans doesn't hold here, the rule doesn't claim precedence over
itself. (Maybe it should be generalised to all self-contradictions?) The
current holder here is interesting; my reading is holder at the
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
Cretans doesn't hold here, the rule doesn't claim precedence over
itself. (Maybe it should be generalised to all self-contradictions?) The
current holder here is interesting; my reading is holder at the time
of vote
29 matches
Mail list logo
