.
From ta...@taral.net Sun Nov 3 21:03:24 2002
.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/07/2013 9:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Jul 9, 2013 9:50 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com
mailto:fool1...@gmail.com wrote:
HER
I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment as I do not believe
that there is
Don't worry, you tend to hang around on IRC with us, so I'm sure we'll
be able to help you. You'll do just fine. =)
~ Roujo
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Lindar Greenwood
lindartheb...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a shame, I didn't even get a chance to assign a case to you. =P
~ Roujo
I intend
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
On Jul 9, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
The candidates for Promotor are omd and Machiavelli.
I ENDORSE the current Promotor.
Perhaps it would be clearest to say I ENDORSE the person who is Promotor as
of
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
On Jul 9, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
The candidates for Promotor are omd and Machiavelli.
I ENDORSE the current Promotor.
Perhaps it would be
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
It's *evaluated* at the end of the voting period, but that could easily
mean at the end of the voting period, evaluate who was the 'current promotor'
at the time the vote was cast. I would personally read it that way.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
So is I vote for the current promotor a conditional vote, or an instantly
resolved reference that's a non-conditional vote? I'd say the former.
Sorry, I meant the latter - I think the above is a non-conditional vote.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
It's *evaluated* at the end of the voting period, but that could easily
mean at the end of the voting period, evaluate who was the 'current
promotor'
at the time the vote
Wow -- news to me. Will get on that ASAP.
Shouldn't have been standing I suppose...
Matthew Berlin
arkes...@gmail.com
535 Misty Patch Rd.
Coatesville, PA 19320
(484) 832-1055
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
There is, CFJ 3361,
I CFJ'd earlier this week, eventually getting it into the correct Fora.
However, I have not seen it referenced, accepted, etc.
Was my statement ineffective due to syntax, or was it overlooked, or does
it just take a while for the relevant Officers to dole out the cases?
- arkestra
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Matt Berlin arkes...@gmail.com wrote:
I CFJ'd earlier this week, eventually getting it into the correct Fora.
However, I have not seen it referenced, accepted, etc.
Was my statement ineffective due to syntax, or was it overlooked, or does it
just take a while
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Lindar Greenwood
lindartheb...@gmail.comwrote:
At the insistence of Roujo, I do now assume a posture of standing.
Let it be known that I do so proudly, and with a ridiculous pose.
This fails. You can't simply flip your posture to standing. You need to
flip it
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Lindar Greenwood
lindartheb...@gmail.com wrote:
I sit.
--
I also read the rules so I stop doing things to embarrass myself.
Don't worry, you're not embarrassing yourself. Everyone here knows how
daunting it can be to start playing Agora. You're just
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, John Smith wrote:
I CfJ on Would paying omd to not post on the public forums as part of a
legally binding agreement between myself and omd cause a violation of Rule
101?
Arguments: This is a simple test of Rule 101(v); does omd have the right to
agree to not
Gratargs: Rule 101 states that no interpretation of a binding agreement may
substantially limit a person's rights. This seems to mean that Rule 101 rights
are unalienable.
—Machiavelli
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Tanner Swett wrote:
Gratargs: Rule 101 states that no interpretation of a binding agreement may
substantially limit a person's rights. This seems to mean that Rule 101
rights are unalienable.
It's a question of what substantially limiting means, really, and also
On 11 July 2013 05:13, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
I CfJ on Would paying omd to not post on the public forums as part of a
legally binding agreement between myself and omd cause a violation of Rule
101?
When you say 'legally binding', are you referring to Agoran, or US law (or
the
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
On 11 July 2013 05:13, John Smith spamba...@yahoo.com wrote:
I CfJ on Would paying omd to not post on the public forums as part of
a legally binding agreement between myself
and omd cause a violation of Rule 101?
When you say
On 11 July 2013 12:37, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
There are certain Rules that limit certain types of speech (e.g. Illegal
to mislead in
certain ways, reveal private actions). Are those also unenforceable, you
think?
No. As you noted yourself, limiting certain kinds of
On 11 July 2013 12:55, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
On 11 July 2013 12:37, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
There are certain Rules that limit certain types of speech (e.g. Illegal
to mislead in
certain ways, reveal private actions). Are those also
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
On 11 July 2013 12:55, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
On 11 July 2013 12:37, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
There are certain Rules that limit certain types of speech (e.g. Illegal to
mislead in
certain ways,
On 11 July 2013 13:21, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I think we're on the same page then, actually. I mentioned 'punishment'
as a
factor, but I didn't mean it to be the only one. E.g. one looks at the
whole
package to see if the effect on speech is particularly meaningful, can
Oh hm, reading further it seems I must also include proof that the
conditions are satisfied.
I once again attempt to cash this promise, with the message further below
as proof the conditions are satisfied.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013,
...and on second thought, I don't think including the proof was actually
necessary, since that only applies to the _text_ of the promise, not its
condition. :P
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
*sigh* pf
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
Oh hm,
24 matches
Mail list logo
