On 4/8/24 18:42, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> I object
> The possessive and the plural are not typos
The full context:
> Amend R2578 to read in full:
>
> A fungible asset is one where two instances of it are considered
> equivalent if they have the same owner, for the purposes
On 4/8/24 18:45, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> I object on secondary grounds that rule 2578 "currencies" does not contain
> "entities"
It does as a result of a resolved proposal, I just noticed it while
working on the (unpublished) updated ruleset.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor,
I object on secondary grounds that rule 2578 "currencies" does not contain
"entities"
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024, 3:43 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 4/8/24 14:52, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > I intend, without object, to clean Rule 2578 by repl
I object
The possessive and the plural are not typos
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024, 11:52 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I intend, without object, to clean Rule 2578 by replacing the sole
> instance of "entities" with "entity's".
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor,
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 3:28 PM Rebecca Lee via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 3:20 PM Telna via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I intend without objection to clean Rule 2635 "Floating Rate Fleet" by
> > correctin
On Thu, 2021-06-17 at 15:28 +1000, Rebecca Lee via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Yep, it seems very clear to me that rule 2221 does not provide a mechanism
> for changing the rules. It needs to be amended to state that it takes
> precedence.
The usual way to make this work is for rules to say somethin
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 3:20 PM Telna via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I intend without objection to clean Rule 2635 "Floating Rate Fleet" by
> correcting the word "Floatation" to "Flotation".
>
> (Wait, does Rule 2221 "Cleanliness and Tidy Filing" even work? Rule 105
>
On 6/18/20 8:39 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
> Meh, I don't see any difference between cleaning platonic typos and
> Rulekeepor typos. Remove them all without mercy!!
Platonic typos need an actual cleaning to solve, while Rulekeepor typos
can just be fixed once they're noticed.
--
Ja
Meh, I don't see any difference between cleaning platonic typos and
Rulekeepor typos. Remove them all without mercy!!
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 6:11 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 6/18/20 4:06 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
> > I intend to cl
On 6/18/20 4:06 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
> I intend to clean Rule 2576 "Ownership" without objection, replacing
> "Department.." with "Department." [first sentence of the second paragraph]
>
I can confirm that the platonic ruleset does have the double period
(unlike some previous atte
Without objection, I intend to go off on a little bit of a tangent.
I like how, in many laws and regulations, bullet points are often used to
write an entire section as a single, potentially extremely long sentence.
To demonstrate, here's 14 CFR 61.23(a) (the requirement for pilots to hold
a medi
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 11:52 AM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020, 13:32 Aris Merchant via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 591 by inserting a period
> > at the end of the first three bulleted l
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020, 13:32 Aris Merchant via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 591 by inserting a period
> at the end of the first three bulleted list items.
>
> [It looks weird that some of the items have periods and others don't;
Having recieved no objection, I do so.
Also, I intend to clean Rule 2350 "Proposals" by replacing all
instances of "nether" with "neither"
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 3:35 PM Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 991 by replacing all instances
> of the word "Judgment" wi
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, omd wrote:
> alright, I should have done this last night, but I was too tired.
> Sorry to bifurcate the gamestate once again; I intend to post a
> summary of recent actions later on.
omd, I hope you haven't become over-attached to that prop I gave you.
omd wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>> I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
>
> There's a good argument that all announcement actions are fee-based
> (zero is non-negative), so this might be valid even if you didn't have
> enough ergs to use the norma
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 14:32, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Yally wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 14:23, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Yally wrote:
>>>
I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
>>>
>>> NoV: Yally violated the Power=1 Rule 2215 (Truthiness) by claiming
>>> that eir attempted erg destr
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
There's a good argument that all announcement actions are fee-based
(zero is non-negative), so this might be valid even if you didn't have
enough ergs to use the normal fee-based destruction.
Yally wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 14:23, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Yally wrote:
>>
>>> I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
>>
>> NoV: Yally violated the Power=1 Rule 2215 (Truthiness) by claiming
>> that eir attempted erg destruction was a fee-based action.
>>
>> Intended NoV, with 1 s
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Flameshadowxeroshin
wrote:
> The only possible one, perhaps?
Rule 1728 requires that the intent "unambiguously and clearly specify
the action and method(s)".
The only possible one, perhaps?
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 5:40 PM, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
> > I intend to clean Rule 2314 (The List of Succession)
>
> With what method?
>
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I intend to clean Rule 2314 (The List of Succession)
With what method?
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Geoffrey Spear
> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Rodlen wrote:
> >> I intend to, without objection, clean rule 2247 (The Janitor), by
> replacing
> >> "one more" in the second sentence with "one or
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/4/22 David Picón Álvarez :
>
> You first intend to. (And become a player.)
E did become a player. Eir very first message fulfilled every
requirement of R869, which says nothing whatsoever about nicknames.
In fact, nicknames are different than name
2009/4/22 Elliott Hird :
> You first intend to. (And become a player.)
^ must
2009/4/22 David Picón Álvarez :
> I clean Rule 2145. There are two words "the" in succession.
>
> The text:
> "A partnership's basis is the set consisting of the union of the
> the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in"
> ought to read:
> "A partnership's basis is the set consi
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 18:03 +0200, David Picón Álvarez wrote:
> I clean Rule 2145. There are two words "the" in succession.
>
> The text:
> "A partnership's basis is the set consisting of the union of the
> the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in"
> ought to read:
> "A partn
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:28 PM, comex wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Aaron Goldfein
>> wrote:
>>> I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 2168 by changing its title from
>>> "Extending the voting period" to "Extending the Votin
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:28 PM, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>> I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 2168 by changing its title from
>> "Extending the voting period" to "Extending the Voting Period".
>
> I object, because according to R105 a titl
Ed Murphy wrote:
pikhq wrote:
On Friday 23 November 2007 15:41:55 Ed Murphy wrote:
The AFO retracts all CFJs that it called within the past 24 hours.
Fortunately, the marks are still in existence. :)
Unfortunately, I still have to process all the actions in comex's
long message. :(
Wou
On Nov 23, 2007 5:41 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The AFO retracts all CFJs that it called within the past 24 hours.
>
Forgot that was possible or I would have done that myself, thanks.
On Friday 23 November 2007 15:49:42 Ed Murphy wrote:
> pikhq wrote:
>
> > On Friday 23 November 2007 15:41:55 Ed Murphy wrote:
>
> >> The AFO retracts all CFJs that it called within the past 24 hours.
> >
> > Fortunately, the marks are still in existence. :)
>
> Unfortunately, I still have to p
pikhq wrote:
On Friday 23 November 2007 15:41:55 Ed Murphy wrote:
The AFO retracts all CFJs that it called within the past 24 hours.
Fortunately, the marks are still in existence. :)
Unfortunately, I still have to process all the actions in comex's
long message. :(
On Friday 23 November 2007 15:41:55 Ed Murphy wrote:
> The AFO retracts all CFJs that it called within the past 24 hours.
>
Fortunately, the marks are still in existence. :)
34 matches
Mail list logo
