Ah, sorry about that, I probably should have stated that.
Jason Cobb
On 7/10/19 6:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Yeah the reason is Transparent. As for it being act-on-behalf, I wrote
it in a bit of a hurry and that's just what I thought of first (
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Yeah the reason is Transparent. As for it being act-on-behalf, I wrote
> it in a bit of a hurry and that's just what I thought of first (and I
> think it would technically work). I withdraw consent to the contract.
Oh, my concern on leaving the
Yeah - I'm not sure because it's never been litigated, but it looks
like the gray method of being straight-up "awarded" short-circuits the
"qualified or earned" part.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Yeah the reason is Transparent. As for it being act-on-behalf, I wrote
> it
Doing it by proposal is better for two reasons, one I get moneeey and
two I think ratifying something objectively untrue should only be done in
real emergencies, which is not so here
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:22 AM Rebecca wrote:
> I retract the second "spaceships"
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 a
I mean I can just make the award/exchange or a simpler agreement
without act-on-behalf? Not sure if you're trying to time it
specifically (doesn't count for Transparent by my reading if that's
the reason).
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 8:02 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> I create the following contract, a
I’d prefer to add them all back to the pool as a batch (it feels cleaner).
So R. Lee, if you still want to do this by proposal, I’d prefer it if you’d
retract the new one and just let me reinsert the old.
-Aris
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 7:00 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> R Lee- I think you could accompl
R Lee- I think you could accomplish the same outcome quicker by ratifying
the space ships into existence without objection
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 6:33 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> The promotor can put the old one back up for a vote again (once), since
> the outcome was FAILED QUORUM.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
The promotor can put the old one back up for a vote again (once), since
the outcome was FAILED QUORUM.
Jason Cobb
On 7/10/19 5:30 PM, Rebecca wrote:
I create and pend (again) the following proposal
Title: Spaceships
AI: 1
Text: Create a spaceship in the possession of each player
Wowzas. How on earth did we (almost) all completely miss an entire batch of
proposals?
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 1:59 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> ---
>
> Results as of end of 7 day voting period:
>
> The quorum for all below decisions was 7.
>
> Voting stre
I'm really sorry that that went to official, forgot to change the to:
address.
Jason Cobb
On 7/10/19 9:48 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
For the adoption of Proposal 8182, I earn (10-1)*3.0 = 27 coins.
For the adoption of Proposal 8186, I earn (11-0)*3.0 = 33 coins.
For the adoption of Proposal 8187,
I'd be happy to weigh in but I note that I have made my opinion pretty
clear, so.
I haven't gotten a cfj in a while. maybe it's because my judgements are
never clear xD
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:56 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> I rescue from these two CFJs. Although I believe my reasoning was correct
11 matches
Mail list logo
