Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2017-08-17 Thread Tanner Swett
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 00:48 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> > Per Rule 2166 (“Assets”), I indent, without objection, to destroy >> > Agora, no sooner than August 20th 2017,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2017-08-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 12:57 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > > On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 09:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Elevating R1698 sounds like a good idea though.  One question is which > > > > of 1698,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2017-08-17 Thread Alex Smith
On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 12:57 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 09:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Elevating R1698 sounds like a good idea though.  One question is which > > > of 1698, 1030, and 1551 should be highest - do their global

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2017-08-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > It has some mechanical protections. The most important one is that it > defines the game: "Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting > in accordance with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or > results of these actions via Fora in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2017-08-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 09:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Elevating R1698 sounds like a good idea though.  One question is which > > of 1698, 1030, and 1551 should be highest - do their global protections > > interact in odd ways that mean we should be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2017-08-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Kerim Aydin > >> wrote: > >> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2017-08-17 Thread Aris Merchant
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 00:48 -0400, Owen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2017-08-17 Thread Alex Smith
On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 09:50 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Elevating R1698 sounds like a good idea though.  One question is which > of 1698, 1030, and 1551 should be highest - do their global protections > interact in odd ways that mean we should be careful about their order? I've believed for a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2017-08-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > >> On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 00:48 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> > Per Rule 2166 (“Assets”), I indent, without objection, to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2017-08-17 Thread Aris Merchant
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 00:48 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> > Per Rule 2166 (“Assets”), I indent, without objection, to destroy >> > Agora, no sooner than August 20th 2017,

DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2017-08-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 00:48 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > Per Rule 2166 (“Assets”), I indent, without objection, to destroy > > Agora, no sooner than August 20th 2017, 01:00, Eastern time. > > Just to make sure, I object. (We have several protections

DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2017-08-16 Thread Owen Jacobson
I thought it mightn’t. Thanks for the comprehensive breakdown. Of course, I had to try - that clause is spectacularly awkward to parse, and I don’t _think_ the interpretation where destroying Agora is a possible action is completely unreasonable, but I’ll happily admit I didn’t expect it to

DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2007-05-14 Thread Zefram
Ed Murphy wrote: If a partnership contains exactly the same members as another registered partnership, then it is prohibited from registering. You haven't constructed such a situation, so this limitation is insufficient. You need to determine the ultimate subject of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2007-05-14 Thread Roger Hicks
I actually find it quite interesting to have partnerships as Shareholders. I'd hate to see that go away due to a rule change. On 5/13/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BobTHJ wrote: Being that Primo Corporation is not a partnership, I don't believe it would exist as a player under this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2007-05-14 Thread Ed Murphy
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: If a partnership contains exactly the same members as another registered partnership, then it is prohibited from registering. You haven't constructed such a situation, so this limitation is insufficient. You need to determine the ultimate

DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday

2007-05-13 Thread Roger Hicks
Being that Primo Corporation is not a partnership, I don't believe it would exist as a player under this new rule. As CEO, I am gravely concerned by this language... BobTHJ On 5/13/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Human Point Two submits the following proposal. Proposal: Delete,