Why not kill a shill partnership?
On 2009-05-15, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 14 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >>>>> 6299 First-class Only D 2.0 1 Yally >>>> AGAINST. I'd be willing to let PNP try again personally... >>> >>> >>> PNP can still run for office, e just can't vote. Otherwise, as it is, >>> Quazie >>> is effectively voting twice. >> >> Oh, there's a more comprehensive solution, I submit the following >> proposal, Active Partnerships Only, AI-2 please: >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Amend Rule 2145 (Partnerships) by replacing: >> A public Legalistic partnership whose basis contains at least >> two persons is a person, and SHALL act as specified by itself. >> with: >> A public Legalistic partnership whose basis has contained at >> least three active first-class players simultaneously at >> some point in the past seven days is a person, and SHALL >> act as specified by itself. >> >> [The "past seven days" means that if someone goes unexpectedly >> on hold or deregisters out of pique, the partnership has time >> to try to come up to numbers]. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> -Goethe >> >> > > Please don't kill HP2! >
