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
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."
--
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
> > 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,
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
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
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 les
On Thursday 31 January 2008 9:50 Roger Hicks wrote:
> 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
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. Howev
> 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?
watcher
--
But you won't have every kid in America reading your book.
They will look at it, and they wi
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 r
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 re
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 of the calling of this CFJ
> would Pavitra's vote of O
13 matches
Mail list logo
