Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

2019-02-05 Thread D. Margaux
I withdraw my proposal The Duumvirate v.1.1, in order to make a minor clarifying edit. I submit (and if necessary pend) a proposal as follows: /// Title: The Duumvirate v.1.2 AI: 3 Author: D. Margaux Co-author: G. Enact a power 3 rule entitled "The Duumvirate" with the following text: { The

Re: BUS: Spaceship intents

2019-02-05 Thread D. Margaux
As intended in my email of January 29, I transfer the spaceships in the lost & found department to the following players chosen for no particularly good reason: The spaceship in Sector 5 to twg. The spaceship in Sector 14 to Cuddle Beam. The spaceship in Sector 9 (formerly owned

Re: BUS: CFJ 3699 Judgement

2019-02-05 Thread Jacob Arduino
I support this motion to reconsider CFJ 3699 On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 1:17 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > Trigon wrote: > > > CFJ STATEMENT > > === > > > > "A Spaceship owned by the Lost and Found Department is in Sector 05". > > > > JUDGEMENT > > === > > > > Events leading up

BUS: allow one-off deputies

2019-02-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
I submit the following proposal, Temporary Deputies, AI=3: Amend Rule 2160 (Deputisation) by replacing: 5. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing so by deputisation. with: 5.

Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections

2019-02-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
I withdraw the below-quoted proposal (Arbitor-free justice) from the pool. I submit the following Proposal: Justice Reenactment, AI-2: Re-enact Rule 2246 (name at repeal: Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar), at Power-2,

BUS: Intent

2019-02-05 Thread D. Margaux
I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the proposal pool. I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposal that I submitted today and that was not withdrawn. (This is merely meant to ensure that I can force my scam proposal to be distributed this week,

Re: BUS: CFJ 3699 Judgement

2019-02-05 Thread D. Margaux
I confer upon Trigon 3 favours in COS because of eir decision in CFJ 3699. > > I judge TRUE. > > -- > Trigon

Re: BUS: Contract

2019-02-05 Thread D. Margaux
I transfer 1 coin to G. > On Feb 5, 2019, at 10:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I agree to this contract. -G. > >> On 2/5/2019 7:27 AM, D. Margaux wrote: >> I consent to the following text and I agree to be bound by it as a contract: >> { >> This is a contract. >> The parties to this

Re: BUS: Contract

2019-02-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
I agree to this contract. -G. On 2/5/2019 7:27 AM, D. Margaux wrote: I consent to the following text and I agree to be bound by it as a contract: { This is a contract. The parties to this contract are D. Margaux and G. In a timely manner after this contract is formed, D. Margaux SHALL

BUS: Contract

2019-02-05 Thread D. Margaux
I consent to the following text and I agree to be bound by it as a contract: { This is a contract. The parties to this contract are D. Margaux and G. In a timely manner after this contract is formed, D. Margaux SHALL once transfer to G. 1 coin. In a timely manner after this contract is

Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

2019-02-05 Thread D. Margaux
Arg. The formatting got a little messed up. It shouldn't make a difference because of Bleach, but in case it does, I withdraw my proposal "The Duumvirate", and submit and if necessary pend a proposal as follows: /// Title: The Duumvirate v.1.1 AI: 3 Author: D. Margaux Co-author: G. Enact a

BUS: The Duumvirate

2019-02-05 Thread D. Margaux
I submit (and pend if necessary) the following proposal: /// Title: The Duumvirate AI: 3 Author: D. Margaux Co-author: G. Enact a power 3 rule entitled "The Duumvirate" with the following text: { The Duumvirate is an organization whose members are D. Margaux and G. Each member of the

Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer something something

2019-02-05 Thread Cuddle Beam
Attn: Herald - I retract the proposal below. (Because maybe its not valid to be submitted because it’s already in transit to be fixed? I dunno.) - I point out the loophole exposed below for the contest. - I then submit the proposal below. On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 09:38, Cuddle Beam wrote: >