On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:20 PM grok via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:23 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business
> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/22/20 9:44 PM, Unspecified Behavior via agora-business wrote:
> > > I do not register, as I am already a player.
On 6/22/20 10:01 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:
> On 2020-06-22 19:44, Unspecified Behavior via agora-business wrote:
>> I do not register, as I am already a player.
>>
>> I withdraw any vote I may or may not have cast on Proposal 8442. I vote FOR
>> on Proposal 8442.
> Thank you for
On 6/22/20 9:50 PM, Unspecified Behavior via agora-business wrote:
> I pledge to reveal my identity after any CFJ depending on it has been
> judged.
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:45 PM Unspecified Behavior via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I do not register, as I
we all agree this is aris right
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:46 AM nch via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 6/22/20 8:44 PM, Unspecified Behavior via agora-business wrote:
> > I do not register, as I am already a player.
> >
> > I withdraw any vote I may or may not have
I submitted unconditional votes :)
On 11/29/2018 6:07 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
It would be nice if some more people could submit unconditional votes. I like
unconditional votes, they're remarkably easy to count.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 8:36
It would be nice if some more people could submit unconditional votes. I like
unconditional votes, they're remarkably easy to count.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 8:36 PM, D. Margaux
wrote:
> Oh, interesting. Thanks for this.
>
> I change my vote on
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
I vote AGAINST the proposal referenced below.
I change my vote on that proposal to ENDORSE the most recent player to join
the Living Zombie contract, if and only if one or more new players have
joined that contract before the end of the voting period on
In what election?
I don't think it's relevant: a vote is a vote! =D
~ Roujo
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
In what election?
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I vote 3 x FOR Prop. 6007 (Thanks Murphy). I withdraw / decline my
self-nomination for Notary.
I'm counting this as declining my nomination of you, since your
self-nomination was ineffective due to being published during
On Dec 3, 2008, at 8:49 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Benjamin Schultz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I vote 3 x FOR Prop. 6007 (Thanks Murphy). I withdraw / decline my
self-nomination for Notary.
I'm counting this as declining my nomination of you, since your
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1 Dec 2008, at 15:58, Elliott Hird wrote:
I agree to the following:
{
This is a public pledge which ehird can terminate by announcement.
Vote Points are a currency whose recordkeepor is ehird.
ehird can create any
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 13:53, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 24 October 2008 02:46:07 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
AVAILABLE TICKETS
Pavitra
BUY - 3VP - Agree to the Crescendo pledge
CoE: This has since been filled by ais523.
Admitted, thanks.
BobTHJ
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How did we come to have a 27 VP surplus?
pikhq destroyed 23 VP when e left the contract very early on.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How did we come to have a 27 VP surplus?
pikhq destroyed 23 VP when e left the contract very early on.
Then how did we come to have a 50 VP surplus?
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then how did we come to have a 50 VP surplus?
It's not really a surplus; the contract was amended to only make
first-class parties get 50 VP for joining after Fookiemyartung was
already a party.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 06:58, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 13:13 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
AVAILABLE TICKETS
(snip)
comex
BUY - 2VP - (a) not have objected to this attempt before this
message, (b) object to this attempt, and (c) do not withdraw
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 29 September 2008 02:13:41 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
Ivan Hope (SLAVE) 80
CoE: ihope ceased to be a Slave yesterday.
Pavitra
Admitted. Though e is still indebted, despite eir claim otherwise.
BobTHJ
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 09:06 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 29 September 2008 02:13:41 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
Ivan Hope (SLAVE) 80
CoE: ihope ceased to be a Slave yesterday.
Pavitra
Admitted.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:10 AM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 09:06 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 29 September 2008 02:13:41 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
Ivan Hope (SLAVE) 80
CoE:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM, David Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just don't clear your cookie file. The cookie will persist until 2038
or something.
Unless, like me, your cookies are automatically forced to be session
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:33 PM, David Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phooey. I so want to define rounds of applause as a currency, right
alongside a href=http://tipjar.com/2008i/tipjarium.html; tipjarium
/a which is in
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM, David Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just don't clear your cookie file. The cookie will persist until 2038
or something.
Unless, like me, your cookies are automatically forced to be session cookies.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about some recordkeepors?
It wouldn't be so horrible to actually make the Accountor do something
for a change.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I like the idea, I object because I already have enough
currencies and transactions to track. Change the recordkeeper and make
any VP transfers pragmatic and I'll support this.
Well, we can't have the VP transfers
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:24 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I like the idea, I object because I already have enough
currencies and transactions to track. Change the recordkeeper and make
any VP transfers pragmatic
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object to this one as well. I really don't like the idea of this
going into the Vote Market contract, but why don't you create this as
a sub-contract?
A sub-contract won't be able to modify VP. While props could just
exist
could the current Accountor please contact me concerning
specifications for automating their task?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about some recordkeepors?
It wouldn't be
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:19 PM, David Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
could the current Accountor please contact me concerning
specifications for automating their task?
I think the Accountor is perfectly capable of creating the automation
necessary to publish no report and track nothing.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:19 PM, David Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
could the current Accountor please contact me concerning
specifications for automating their task?
I think the Accountor is perfectly capable of
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:20 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object to this one as well. I really don't like the idea of this
going into the Vote Market contract, but why don't you create this as
a sub-contract?
A
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:33 PM, David Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phooey. I so want to define rounds of applause as a currency, right
alongside a href=http://tipjar.com/2008i/tipjarium.html; tipjarium
/a which is in pre-alpha state but if you think ReCaptcha is fun,
it's a game today.
comex wrote:
Equity is becoming more and more powerful because some seemingly
crucial parts of the game are located in contracts. And indeed, it
has been proposed that we give equity jurisdiction over the Rules.
But equity is not in the Spirit of Agora, because it basically forbids
scams
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sgeo's FINE in the judge's choice of currency proposal would allow
such flexibility.
Not really. For one thing, a Vote Market-specific mechanism would be
much preferable since the VPs remain zero-sum. But generally,
criminal
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:34 -0400, Sgeo wrote:
I agree to the following contract:
{
This is a public contract called Vote Market Insurance. Parties to
this contract are known as Insurees.
Any entity that either possesses VP or is bound by the Vote Market may
join this contract by
comex wrote:
Without three objections, I intend to amend the Vote Market contract
by adding the following section:
{
13. Pokes are a fixed currency. Once per week, a first-class party
CAN poke a person by announcement, causing em to gain a poke. If a
person ever has at least five pokes,
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Monday 14 July 2008 03:06:54 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
To pave the way for future changes as have been discussed:
With the majority consent of the Vote Market parties I intend to
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe this fails. You still have an unfulfilled obligation to vote
as I specify on a future proposal of my choice. However, if you want
out of Vote Market
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 12:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
At this point, I'm realizing that I'm not comfortable being in a contract
with this kind of economic character where (1) leaving the contract is
limited
in many circumstances and (2) the contract change mechanism is majority vote
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I leave the Vote Market.
I believe this fails. You still have an unfulfilled obligation to vote
as I specify on a future proposal of my choice. However, if you want
out of Vote Market I'll release you from that obligation if
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I leave the Vote Market.
I believe this fails. You still have an unfulfilled obligation to vote
as I specify on a future proposal of my choice.
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe this fails. You still have an unfulfilled obligation to vote
as I specify on a future proposal of my choice. However, if you want
out of Vote Market I'll release you from that obligation if you pledge
to fulfill it
I strongly object to this change. -Goethe
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
Borrowing from ais523's ideas and other discussions, with the majority
consent of the Vote Market parties I intend to amend the agreement as
follows:
{
Replace section 10 with:
{{
A first-class party who
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I strongly object to this change. -Goethe
Both of them? To the public forum even?
BobTHJ
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 09:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I object to anything that takes away a good-faith ability to settle
accounts as opposed to forced selling. This is bad, and I urge others
not to approve. I also intend to leave the Vote Market as soon as I can,
as it's obvious that I
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object to anything that takes away a good-faith ability to settle
accounts as opposed to forced selling. This is bad, and I urge others
not to approve. I also intend to leave the Vote Market as soon as I can,
as it's
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
What if you had the ability to optionally avoid the forced sale and
instead be subject to criminal penalty? Would this be reasonable to
you?
At this point, I'm realizing that I'm not comfortable being in a contract
with this kind of economic character
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
VP HOLDINGS
Party VP
---
BobTHJ 62*
Fookiemyartug 50
The P2P Partnership
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I post the following Sell Ticket:
Cost: 1VP
Action: Vote in the manner specified by the filler on any 3 specified
proposals.
Sheesh, the bottom really is dropping out of the market. Shows how
difficult a hard limit rule may be to keep. -Goethe
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recommend the judge of these cases implement a significant penalty
upon comex for eir continued blatant violation of this agreement.
Wouldn't a criminal case be more appropriate?
On 3/27/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fair enough, although you're neglecting the fact that there only needs
to be enough VP for all parties but one to leave. If the contract
drops to one party, then it terminates, regardless of how many VP that
last party has.
We should make the
On 3/26/08, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
VP HOLDINGS
Party VP
---
BobTHJ 77
Fookiemyartug 50
The P2P Partnership 0
Goethe 50
comex
Eris wrote:
It occurs to me that there are not enough VPs for every player to
maintain a 50-count. Perhaps something like this?
Yeah, anyone leaving with 50 VPs throws off the zero-sum status
(counting relative to the 50-VP baseline).
13. At the beginning of each week, if the sum of all VP
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...shall create ceiling(50-(S/N)) VPs in the possession of each
first-class party to the Vote Market, where S is the sum of all
VP holdings and N is the number of first-class parties.
With this method, you could get S 1
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:04 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...shall create ceiling(50-(S/N)) VPs in the possession of each
first-class party to the Vote Market, where S is the sum of all
VP holdings and N is
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you're wrong. ceiling(50 - ((50N-1)/N)) = ceiling(1/N) = 1.
Oh.. you're right. Well, in that case, you'd get positive sum, S
50N. With zero-sum, it would only be possible for all parties to
leave if each had exactly
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you're wrong. ceiling(50 - ((50N-1)/N)) = ceiling(1/N) = 1.
Oh.. you're right. Well, in that case, you'd get positive sum, S
50N. With zero-sum,
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 6:38 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/03/2008, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you referring to reporting a list of current tickets? If so that
is something I could add to my report if there was interest.
Well, as far as I can see, currently, the
On 12/03/2008, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll begin compiling a list of tickets as they are posted. I'm not
hunting back through the archives though to get past ones.
Well, you can get this one, at least:
On 05/03/2008, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join the Vote Market. I post
On 11/03/2008, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. The Broker is responsible for maintaining the Vote Market.
Initially the Broker is BobTHJ.
I take it that doesn't include Tickets?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:52 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/03/2008, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. The Broker is responsible for maintaining the Vote Market.
Initially the Broker is BobTHJ.
I take it that doesn't include Tickets?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
Are you
On 11/03/2008, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you referring to reporting a list of current tickets? If so that
is something I could add to my report if there was interest.
Well, as far as I can see, currently, the only way to see what tickets
there are is to search through the
On 2/3/08, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that the Vote Market prevents me from leaving under certain
circumstances.
And that is *exactly* what equity cases are for.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
BobTHJ wrote:
I intend to make the following changes to the Vote Market agreement
with the majority consent of its parties:
I consent to these changes. Hmm, we haven't had auctions since 2003,
probably a good time to revisit the idea.
One general problem I've noticed with the Vote Market,
On Feb 5, 2008 8:44 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
I intend to make the following changes to the Vote Market agreement
with the majority consent of its parties:
I consent to these changes. Hmm, we haven't had auctions since 2003,
probably a good time to revisit the
Ben Caplan wrote:
Since we are assuming I was already under 50 VP when this was first proposed,
I would have no way of avoiding being bound by these new terms.
You could simply have not agreed to the contract that allowed itself to
be amended in this way. Once you have agreed, yes, you're tied
On Sunday 03 February 2008 12:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
Oh wait -- would amendment by less than unanimity create a R101(v)
conflict?
Nope! Only if the voting process itself were patently unfair. When you
agree, in joining the contract, to be bound by the
The problem is that the Vote Market prevents me from leaving under certain
circumstances.
Suppose I have 49 VP, and someone proposes to add an article reading At
the beginning of each week, if watcher is a party and has at least as many
VP as there are parties to this contract, then one
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
On Sunday 03 February 2008 12:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
Oh wait -- would amendment by less than unanimity create a R101(v)
conflict?
Nope! Only if the voting process itself were patently unfair. When you
agree, in
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
I would prefer to require more than simple majority -- 2/3, perhaps?
I'd be fine with that. However, if we could allow this to go through
and then you propose that as a separate change I would appreciate it.
Oh wait -- would amendment by less than
On Jan 30, 2008 5:42 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Amend section 9 to read:
{{
Any party may amend this agreement with the majority consent of the
other parties
}}
I would prefer to require more than simple majority -- 2/3, perhaps?
I'd be fine with that. However, if we
On Saturday 26 January 2008 10:37:07 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 26, 2008 10:29 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the following statements (requesting linked assignments):
Where the above referenced decision on amending the Vote Market
agreement able to be validly resolved as
On Jan 26, 2008 10:42 AM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 26 January 2008 10:37:07 Ian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 26, 2008 10:29 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the following statements (requesting linked assignments):
Where the above referenced
On Jan 15, 2008 3:40 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
January 21, 2008 - BobTHJ obligated to deregister
The contract doesn't specify any such time frame. I'd say that as
long as you eventually deregister, you will have fulfilled this
obligation.
-root
root wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 3:40 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
January 21, 2008 - BobTHJ obligated to deregister
The contract doesn't specify any such time frame. I'd say that as
long as you eventually deregister, you will have fulfilled this
obligation.
From the VM agreement:
On Jan 15, 2008 4:25 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the VM agreement:
The party who posted the Sell Ticket is then obligated to take the
action described in the Sell Ticket as soon as possible.
Ah, I missed that. There appears to be no such timing requirement for
Buy Tickets,
On Jan 14, 2008 7:41 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the following: The Vote Market is a contract.
Arguments against: It was formed by Fookiemyartug and BobTHJ. Fookiemyartug
has never been a player. Therefore, the Vote Market never formed.
Arguments: While Fookiemyartug
On Jan 14, 2008 7:41 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the following: The Vote Market is a contract.
Arguments against: It was formed by Fookiemyartug and BobTHJ. Fookiemyartug
has never been a player. Therefore, the Vote Market never formed.
It didn't need to be a player,
On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7. Any player may join the Vote Market by announcement. Upon joining
the Vote Market, 50 VP are created in the possession of that player.
First class?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
On Friday 14 December 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
The party who posted the Sell
Ticket is then OBLIGATED to cast all eir votes on that decision in the
same manner as specified by the party who filled the Sell Ticket, but
only if the voting period on that decision does not end within the
next 48
Eris wrote:
On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7. Any player may join the Vote Market by announcement. Upon joining
the Vote Market, 50 VP are created in the possession of that player.
First class?
A partnership could welsh on an agreement by dissolving, but only if
someone
On 12/14/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eris wrote:
On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
7. Any player may join the Vote Market by announcement. Upon joining
the Vote Market, 50 VP are created in the possession of that player.
First class?
A partnership could
comex wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
The party who posted the Sell
Ticket is then OBLIGATED to cast all eir votes on that decision in the
same manner as specified by the party who filled the Sell Ticket, but
only if the voting period on that decision does not end within
83 matches
Mail list logo
