I see no harm in leaving it as is and would oppose any such change.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 24, 2017, at 8:13 PM, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>
> On Jul 24, 2017 7:09 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
> I am pro the concept, but questioning the Specif
On Jul 24, 2017 7:09 PM, "Quazie" wrote:
I am pro the concept, but questioning the Specifics - I think the super
should be able to unquestionably kill any agency without a valid director -
and then the w/o two objections should only be for invalid agents.
I left in w/o two objections for certai
I am pro the concept, but questioning the Specifics - I think the super
should be able to unquestionably kill any agency without a valid director -
and then the w/o two objections should only be for invalid agents.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 17:05 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.schola
This makes sense.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 24, 2017, at 1:59 PM, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>
> The pending CoE on the Superintendent's report (C♥️U is an agency)
> raises the issue of Agencies with non-Player directors, and the
> existen
The pending CoE on the Superintendent's report (C♥️U is an agency)
raises the issue of Agencies with non-Player directors, and the
existence of Agencies after players deregister. I put together this
proto last night to solve the issue.
{
Title: Agency Closures and Cleanup Act
AI: 1
Author: grok
E
If agreements-as-persons doesn't work, then R2205(3) should be removed
(and (4) renumbered). If it does, then we may want to revive some form
of the equity case; to prevent the delays that plagued the old version,
I suggest assigning them to a panel of all players who are active as of
the assignme
6 matches
Mail list logo
