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,
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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,
16 matches
Mail list logo