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
> i
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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 th
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, 3 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> If the 30 days were changed to 60 days, would you support then? The
> contract is then less restrictive then it was before.
There was no mandated enforced sale previously, so it is not
less restrictive than before. That's the part I object to. -Goethe
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
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 10:16 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I strongly object to this change. -Goethe
>
Both of them? To the public forum even?
BobTHJ
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
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 re
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, th
10 matches
Mail list logo
