On 02/25/2010 12:21 AM, David Nicol wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
The rules for first- versus second-class players are still in place,
however, so any new proposals would be welcomed.
So if I actually came up with a proposal or suite of proposals
involving charterin
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 01:17 -0600, David Nicol wrote:
> Sorry, my lurking on agora-dis has been very minimal for the last
> several years. Did the concept get exhausted internally as amusing, or
> for lack of external customers wanting to name Agora as the
> jurisdiction of disputes in contracts? I
On 02/25/2010 12:17 AM, David Nicol wrote:
Sorry, my lurking on agora-dis has been very minimal for the last
several years. Did the concept get exhausted internally as amusing, or
for lack of external customers wanting to name Agora as the
jurisdiction of disputes in contracts? I'm quite willing
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> The rules for first- versus second-class players are still in place,
> however, so any new proposals would be welcomed.
So if I actually came up with a proposal or suite of proposals
involving chartering some particular entity in Agora (which ha
Sorry, my lurking on agora-dis has been very minimal for the last
several years. Did the concept get exhausted internally as amusing, or
for lack of external customers wanting to name Agora as the
jurisdiction of disputes in contracts? I'm quite willing to believe
that I'm the only individual on Ea
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:15 PM, comex wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> How about we combine it with the Succession List changes I protoed the other
>>> day? Something like:
>>>
>>> - Top N positions on list are assoc
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, comex wrote:
> I think the obligation is to "perform the next action you're
> instructed to perform"; the nature of the action is separate (e.g. if
> I am obligated to publish a report this week, the obligation is
> one-off, but the actual text I am required to publish would c
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:15 PM, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> How about we combine it with the Succession List changes I protoed the other
>> day? Something like:
>>
>> - Top N positions on list are associated with Positions (top being Speaker).
>> - Cham
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> How about we combine it with the Succession List changes I protoed the other
> day? Something like:
>
> - Top N positions on list are associated with Positions (top being Speaker).
> - Champion moves you to the top but there are other ways to
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Yes, but at the time you made the instruction to "each player", you made
> (1) one instruction to the AoN (me) which imposed the obligation; and
> (2) an instruction to each other player, which had no effect and has
> no lingering effect, as th
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Also, any criminal case would presumably be judged NOT GUILTY per
> R1504(e) due to lack of reasonable opportunity to react, especially
> for anyone who sends "if I possess AotN then I transfer it to c."
> or "if I possess AotN then I transfer it
On 02/24/2010 07:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
How about we combine it with the Succession List changes I protoed the other
day? Something like:
- Top N positions on list are associated with Positions (top being Speaker).
- Champion moves you to the top but there are other ways to move up, e.g..
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 02/24/2010 06:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Proto: amend the relevant rule to say "When a chicken coup is begun,
>>> the person who was Admiral of the Navy at that time".
>>
>> I think the coup rules need a l
On 02/24/2010 06:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proto: amend the relevant rule to say "When a chicken coup is begun,
the person who was Admiral of the Navy at that time".
I think the coup rules need a little more tinkering than that if we're
ever going to use
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 17:47 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Proto: amend the relevant rule to say "When a chicken coup is begun,
> > the person who was Admiral of the Navy at that time".
>
> I think the coup rules need a little more tinkering than that if we'
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proto: amend the relevant rule to say "When a chicken coup is begun,
> the person who was Admiral of the Navy at that time".
I think the coup rules need a little more tinkering than that if we're
ever going to use them. In particular, now that governments
G. wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, comex wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> I don't understand why you think that the obligation-ness travels with
>>> the card but the actual obligation (e.g. what you instructed me to do
>>> yesterday) doesn't. -G.
>>
>> Hmm. I'm n
ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 15:08 -0500, comex wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> I don't understand why you think that the obligation-ness travels with
>>> the card but the actual obligation (e.g. what you instructed me to do
>>> yesterday) doesn't. -G.
G. wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, comex wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
I transfer Admiral of the Navy to Murphy. -G.
>>> I transfer Admiral of the Navy to my mother.
>>
>> I instruct your mother to register.
>
> I don't understand why you think that the obligati
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, ais523 wrote:
> Then you'd be risking Murphy starting a chicken coup and pulling the
> exact same trick right back on you.
Yes, it's trivially possible to have an endless string of obligations
that don't have to be filled:
1. You start a Chicken Coup, give me the AoN, then
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I don't understand why you think that the obligation-ness travels with
>> the card but the actual obligation (e.g. what you instructed me to do
>> yesterday) doesn't. -G.
>
> Hmm. I'm not sure. While th
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 15:08 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I don't understand why you think that the obligation-ness travels with
> > the card but the actual obligation (e.g. what you instructed me to do
> > yesterday) doesn't. -G.
>
> Hmm. I'm no
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I don't understand why you think that the obligation-ness travels with
> the card but the actual obligation (e.g. what you instructed me to do
> yesterday) doesn't. -G.
Hmm. I'm not sure. While the obligation was for the position of
Admira
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> I transfer Admiral of the Navy to Murphy. -G.
>> I transfer Admiral of the Navy to my mother.
>
> I instruct your mother to register.
I don't understand why you think that the obligation-ness travels with
24 matches
Mail list logo
