On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:20 PM grok via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:23 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business
> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/22/20 9:44 PM, Unspecified Behavior via agora-business wrote:
> > > I do not register, as I am already a player.
>
On 6/22/20 10:01 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:
> On 2020-06-22 19:44, Unspecified Behavior via agora-business wrote:
>> I do not register, as I am already a player.
>>
>> I withdraw any vote I may or may not have cast on Proposal 8442. I vote FOR
>> on Proposal 8442.
> Thank you for n
On 6/22/20 9:50 PM, Unspecified Behavior via agora-business wrote:
> I pledge to reveal my identity after any CFJ depending on it has been
> judged.
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:45 PM Unspecified Behavior via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I do not register, as I a
we all agree this is aris right
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:46 AM nch via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 6/22/20 8:44 PM, Unspecified Behavior via agora-business wrote:
> > I do not register, as I am already a player.
> >
> > I withdraw any vote I may or may not have c
I submitted unconditional votes :)
On 11/29/2018 6:07 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
It would be nice if some more people could submit unconditional votes. I like
unconditional votes, they're remarkably easy to count.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 8:36 PM
It would be nice if some more people could submit unconditional votes. I like
unconditional votes, they're remarkably easy to count.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 8:36 PM, D. Margaux
wrote:
> Oh, interesting. Thanks for this.
>
> I change my vote on pro
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
I vote AGAINST the proposal referenced below.
I change my vote on that proposal to ENDORSE the most recent player to join
the Living Zombie contract, if and only if one or more new players have
joined that contract before the end of the voting period on th
I don't think it's relevant: a vote is a vote! =D
~ Roujo
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> In what election?
>
In what election?
On Dec 3, 2008, at 8:49 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Benjamin Schultz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I vote 3 x FOR Prop. 6007 ("Thanks Murphy"). I withdraw / decline my
self-nomination for Notary.
I'm counting this as declining my nomination of you, since your
sel
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:20 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I vote 3 x FOR Prop. 6007 ("Thanks Murphy"). I withdraw / decline my
> self-nomination for Notary.
I'm counting this as declining my nomination of you, since your
self-nomination was ineffective due to being published d
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2008, at 15:58, Elliott Hird wrote:
>
>> I agree to the following:
>> {
>> This is a public pledge which ehird can terminate by announcement.
>>
>> Vote Points are a currency whose recordkeepor is ehird.
>>
>> ehird
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 13:53, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 24 October 2008 02:46:07 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
>> AVAILABLE TICKETS
>>
>> Pavitra
>> BUY - 3VP - Agree to the Crescendo pledge
>
> CoE: This has since been filled by ais523.
>
Admitted, thanks.
BobTHJ
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then how did we come to have a 50 VP surplus?
It's not really a surplus; the contract was amended to only make
first-class parties get 50 VP for joining after Fookiemyartung was
already a party.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How did we come to have a 27 VP surplus?
>
> pikhq destroyed 23 VP when e left the contract very early on.
Then how did we come to have a 50 VP surpl
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How did we come to have a 27 VP surplus?
pikhq destroyed 23 VP when e left the contract very early on.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> VP HOLDINGS
> Party VP
> ---
> BobTHJ 59
> Fookiemyartug 50
> The P2P Partnership 0
> Goethe (INDEBTED) 46
> comex (IN
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 06:58, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 13:13 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> AVAILABLE TICKETS
>>
> (snip)
>> comex
>> BUY - 2VP - (a) not have objected to this attempt before this
>> message, (b) object to this attempt, and (c) do not
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:10 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 09:06 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Ben Caplan
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Monday 29 September 2008 02:13:41 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
>> >> Ivan Hope (SLAVE)
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 09:06 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 29 September 2008 02:13:41 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
> >> Ivan Hope (SLAVE) 80
> >
> > CoE: ihope ceased to be a Slave yesterday.
> >
> > Pavitra
>
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 29 September 2008 02:13:41 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Ivan Hope (SLAVE) 80
>
> CoE: ihope ceased to be a Slave yesterday.
>
> Pavitra
>
Admitted. Though e is still indebted, despite eir claim otherwise.
B
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> just don't clear your cookie file. The cookie will persist until 2038
>> or something.
>
> Unless, like me, your cookies are automatically forced to be ses
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> just don't clear your cookie file. The cookie will persist until 2038
> or something.
Unless, like me, your cookies are automatically forced to be session cookies.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:33 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Phooey. I so want to define "rounds of applause" as a currency, right
>> alongside http://tipjar.com/2008i/tipjarium.html";> tipjarium
>> which is in
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sgeo's "FINE in the judge's choice of currency" proposal would allow
> such flexibility.
Not really. For one thing, a Vote Market-specific mechanism would be
much preferable since the VPs remain zero-sum. But generally,
cri
comex wrote:
> Equity is becoming more and more powerful because some seemingly
> crucial parts of the game are located in contracts. And indeed, it
> has been proposed that we give equity jurisdiction over the Rules.
> But equity is not in the Spirit of Agora, because it basically forbids
> scam
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:33 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phooey. I so want to define "rounds of applause" as a currency, right
> alongside http://tipjar.com/2008i/tipjarium.html";> tipjarium
> which is in pre-alpha state but if you think ReCaptcha is fun,
> it's a game today.
Su
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:20 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I object to this one as well. I really don't like the idea of this
>> going into the Vote Market contract, but why don't you create this as
>> a sub-contract
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:19 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> could the current Accountor please contact me concerning
>> specifications for automating their task?
>
> I think the Accountor is perfectly capabl
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:19 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> could the current Accountor please contact me concerning
> specifications for automating their task?
I think the Accountor is perfectly capable of creating the automation
necessary to publish no report and track nothing.
could the current Accountor please contact me concerning
specifications for automating their task?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How about some recordkeepors?
>
> It would
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I object to this one as well. I really don't like the idea of this
> going into the Vote Market contract, but why don't you create this as
> a sub-contract?
A sub-contract won't be able to modify VP. While props could just
e
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Broker's Report - Vote Market
>
>> CURRENT TICKETS (Not a comprehensive list)
>>
>
>> Quazie
>> SELL - 1VP - 1 chance to Spin the Prize W
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:24 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> While I like the idea, I object because I already have enough
>> currencies and transactions to track. Change the recordkeeper and make
>> any VP transfers
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I like the idea, I object because I already have enough
> currencies and transactions to track. Change the recordkeeper and make
> any VP transfers pragmatic and I'll support this.
Well, we can't have the VP transfers
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about some recordkeepors?
It wouldn't be so horrible to actually make the Accountor do something
for a change.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:53 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I OBJECT to my previous attempt to add a section to the Vote Market
> contract. (The proposed typo fix stands.)
>
> Without 3 objections I intend to amend the Vote Market contract by
> adding the following sections:
> {{
> 13. Pok
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Players playing attention can destroy eir pokes by announcement,
> right? Note that a conspiracy of five players can forcibly dislodge
> one VP per week (four of them can make a contract allowing the fifth
> to act on their be
comex wrote:
> Without three objections, I intend to amend the Vote Market contract
> by adding the following section:
> {
> 13. Pokes are a fixed currency. Once per week, a first-class party
> CAN poke a person by announcement, causing em to gain a poke. If a
> person ever has at least five pok
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:34 -0400, Sgeo wrote:
> I agree to the following contract:
>
> {
> This is a public contract called "Vote Market Insurance". Parties to
> this contract are known as Insurees.
>
> Any entity that either possesses VP or is bound by the Vote Market may
> join this contract b
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
>
>> On Monday 14 July 2008 03:06:54 pm Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> To pave the way for future changes as have been discussed:
>>>
>>> With the majority consent of the Vote Market parties I
COE: you are missing the following sell ticket from me:
1 VP, I will object or support a change to the
?? pledge. This ticket may be filled
mutiple times, though only 1 time per change. This ticket does not
expire until I say it does.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> COE: ais523 filled 2 1VP sell tickets from me, see:
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Admitted. Will be corrected in the next report.
BobTHJ
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I believe this fails. You still have an unfulfilled obligation to vote
>> as I specify on a future proposal of my choice. However, if you want
>> out of Vote
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe this fails. You still have an unfulfilled obligation to vote
> as I specify on a future proposal of my choice. However, if you want
> out of Vote Market I'll release you from that obligation if you pledge
> to fulfil
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I leave the Vote Market.
>>
> I believe this fails. You still have an unfulfilled obligation to vote
> as I specify on a future proposal of my choic
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I leave the Vote Market.
>
I believe this fails. You still have an unfulfilled obligation to vote
as I specify on a future proposal of my choice. However, if you want
out of Vote Market I'll release you from that obligation
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 12:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> At this point, I'm realizing that I'm not comfortable being in a contract
> with this kind of economic character where (1) leaving the contract is
> limited
> in many circumstances and (2) the contract change mechanism is majority vote
> i
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> VP HOLDINGS
>> Party VP
>> ---
>> BobTHJ 62*
>> Fookiemyartug 50
>> The
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> What if you had the ability to optionally avoid the forced sale and
>> instead be subject to criminal penalty? Would this be reasonable to
>> you?
>
> At this point, I'm realizing th
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> What if you had the ability to optionally avoid the forced sale and
> instead be subject to criminal penalty? Would this be reasonable to
> you?
At this point, I'm realizing that I'm not comfortable being in a contract
with this kind of economic character
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> If the 30 days were changed to 60 days, would you support then? The
> contract is then less restrictive then it was before.
There was no mandated enforced sale previously, so it is not
less restrictive than before. That's the part I object to. -Goethe
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I object to anything that takes away a good-faith ability to settle
> accounts as opposed to forced selling. This is bad, and I urge others
> not to approve. I also intend to leave the Vote Market as soon as I can,
> as it
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 09:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I object to anything that takes away a good-faith ability to settle
> accounts as opposed to forced selling. This is bad, and I urge others
> not to approve. I also intend to leave the Vote Market as soon as I can,
> as it's obvious that I
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I strongly object to this change. -Goethe
>
Both of them? To the public forum even?
BobTHJ
I strongly object to this change. -Goethe
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Borrowing from ais523's ideas and other discussions, with the majority
> consent of the Vote Market parties I intend to amend the agreement as
> follows:
> {
> Replace section 10 with:
> {{
> A first-class party
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I post the following Sell Ticket:
>
> Cost: 1VP
> Action: Vote in the manner specified by the filler on any 3 specified
> proposals.
Sheesh, the bottom really is dropping out of the market. Shows how
difficult a "hard limit" rule may be to keep. -G
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recommend the judge of these cases implement a significant penalty
> upon comex for eir continued blatant violation of this agreement.
Wouldn't a criminal case be more appropriate?
On 3/27/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fair enough, although you're neglecting the fact that there only needs
> to be enough VP for all parties but one to leave. If the contract
> drops to one party, then it terminates, regardless of how many VP that
> last party has.
We should make t
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think you're wrong. ceiling(50 - ((50N-1)/N)) = ceiling(1/N) = 1.
> Oh.. you're right. Well, in that case, you'd get positive sum, S >
> 50N. With z
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you're wrong. ceiling(50 - ((50N-1)/N)) = ceiling(1/N) = 1.
Oh.. you're right. Well, in that case, you'd get positive sum, S >
50N. With zero-sum, it would only be possible for all parties to
leave if each had exact
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:04 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "...shall create ceiling(50-(S/N)) VPs in the possession of each
> > first-class party to the Vote Market, where S is the sum of all
> > VP holdin
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "...shall create ceiling(50-(S/N)) VPs in the possession of each
> first-class party to the Vote Market, where S is the sum of all
> VP holdings and N is the number of first-class parties".
With this method, you could get
Eris wrote:
> It occurs to me that there are not enough VPs for every player to
> maintain a 50-count. Perhaps something like this?
Yeah, anyone leaving with >50 VPs throws off the zero-sum status
(counting relative to the 50-VP baseline).
> 13. At the beginning of each week, if the sum of all V
On 3/26/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> VP HOLDINGS
> Party VP
> ---
> BobTHJ 77
> Fookiemyartug 50
> The P2P Partnership 0
> Goethe 50
> comex
On 12/03/2008, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll begin compiling a list of tickets as they are posted. I'm not
> hunting back through the archives though to get past ones.
Well, you can get this one, at least:
On 05/03/2008, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I join the Vote Market.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 6:38 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/03/2008, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Are you referring to reporting a list of current tickets? If so that
> > is something I could add to my report if there was interest.
>
> Well, as far as I can see, cur
On 11/03/2008, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you referring to reporting a list of current tickets? If so that
> is something I could add to my report if there was interest.
Well, as far as I can see, currently, the only way to see what tickets
there are is to search through the arc
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:52 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/03/2008, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2. The Broker is responsible for maintaining the Vote Market.
> > Initially the Broker is BobTHJ.
>
> I take it that doesn't include Tickets?
>
> --Ivan Hope CXXVII
>
On 11/03/2008, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. The Broker is responsible for maintaining the Vote Market.
> Initially the Broker is BobTHJ.
I take it that doesn't include Tickets?
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
On 2/3/08, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that the Vote Market prevents me from leaving under certain
> circumstances.
And that is *exactly* what equity cases are for.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
--
On Feb 5, 2008 8:44 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
> > I intend to make the following changes to the Vote Market agreement
> > with the majority consent of its parties:
>
> I consent to these changes. Hmm, we haven't had auctions since 2003,
> probably a good time to re
BobTHJ wrote:
I intend to make the following changes to the Vote Market agreement
with the majority consent of its parties:
I consent to these changes. Hmm, we haven't had auctions since 2003,
probably a good time to revisit the idea.
One general problem I've noticed with the Vote Market, th
Ben Caplan wrote:
>Since we are assuming I was already under 50 VP when this was first proposed,
>I would have no way of avoiding being bound by these new terms.
You could simply have not agreed to the contract that allowed itself to
be amended in this way. Once you have agreed, yes, you're tied
> > The problem is that the Vote Market prevents me from leaving under certain
> > circumstances.
> > Suppose I have 49 VP, and someone proposes to add an article reading "At
> > the beginning of each week, if watcher is a party and has at least as many
> > VP as there are parties to this contract,
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> On Sunday 03 February 2008 12:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
>>> Oh wait -- would amendment by less than unanimity create a R101(v)
>>> conflict?
>>
>> Nope! Only if the voting process itself were patently unfair. When you
On Sunday 03 February 2008 12:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> > Oh wait -- would amendment by less than unanimity create a R101(v)
> > conflict?
>
> Nope! Only if the voting process itself were patently unfair. When you
> agree, in joining the contract, to be bound
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
>>> I would prefer to require more than simple majority -- 2/3, perhaps?
>>>
>> I'd be fine with that. However, if we could allow this to go through
>> and then you propose that as a separate change I would appreciate it.
>
> Oh wait -- would amendment by les
On Thursday 31 January 2008 9:50 Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 5:42 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Amend section 9 to read:
> > > {{
> > > Any party may amend this agreement with the majority consent of the
> > > other parties
> > > }}
> >
> > I would prefer to require more
On Jan 30, 2008 5:42 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Amend section 9 to read:
> > {{
> > Any party may amend this agreement with the majority consent of the
> > other parties
> > }}
>
> I would prefer to require more than simple majority -- 2/3, perhaps?
>
I'd be fine with that. Howev
> Amend section 9 to read:
> {{
> Any party may amend this agreement with the majority consent of the
> other parties
> }}
I would prefer to require more than simple majority -- 2/3, perhaps?
watcher
--
But you won't have every kid in America reading your book.
They will look at it, and they wi
On Jan 26, 2008 10:42 AM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Saturday 26 January 2008 10:37:07 Ian Kelly wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 2008 10:29 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I CFJ on the following statements (requesting linked assignments):
> > >
> > > Where the above r
On Saturday 26 January 2008 10:37:07 Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2008 10:29 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I CFJ on the following statements (requesting linked assignments):
> >
> > Where the above referenced decision on amending the Vote Market
> > agreement able to be validly re
On Jan 26, 2008 10:29 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the following statements (requesting linked assignments):
>
> Where the above referenced decision on amending the Vote Market
> agreement able to be validly resolved as of the calling of this CFJ
> would Pavitra's vote of O
On Jan 15, 2008 4:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From the VM agreement:
>
> "The party who posted the Sell Ticket is then obligated to take the
> action described in the Sell Ticket as soon as possible."
Ah, I missed that. There appears to be no such timing requirement for
Buy Tic
root wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 3:40 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
January 21, 2008 - BobTHJ obligated to deregister
The contract doesn't specify any such time frame. I'd say that as
long as you eventually deregister, you will have fulfilled this
obligation.
From the VM agreement:
On Jan 15, 2008 3:40 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> January 21, 2008 - BobTHJ obligated to deregister
The contract doesn't specify any such time frame. I'd say that as
long as you eventually deregister, you will have fulfilled this
obligation.
-root
On Jan 14, 2008 7:41 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the following: The Vote Market is a contract.
> Arguments against: It was formed by Fookiemyartug and BobTHJ. Fookiemyartug
> has never been a player. Therefore, the Vote Market never formed.
>
Arguments: While Fookiemy
On Jan 14, 2008 7:41 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the following: The Vote Market is a contract.
> Arguments against: It was formed by Fookiemyartug and BobTHJ. Fookiemyartug
> has never been a player. Therefore, the Vote Market never formed.
It didn't need to be a pla
Eris wrote:
On 12/14/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eris wrote:
On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
7. Any player may join the Vote Market by announcement. Upon joining
the Vote Market, 50 VP are created in the possession of that player.
First class?
A partnership
comex wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
The party who posted the Sell
Ticket is then OBLIGATED to cast all eir votes on that decision in the
same manner as specified by the party who filled the Sell Ticket, but
only if the voting period on that decision does not end within t
On 12/14/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eris wrote:
>
> > On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 7. Any player may join the Vote Market by announcement. Upon joining
> >> the Vote Market, 50 VP are created in the possession of that player.
> >
> > First class?
>
> A pa
Eris wrote:
On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
7. Any player may join the Vote Market by announcement. Upon joining
the Vote Market, 50 VP are created in the possession of that player.
First class?
A partnership could welsh on an agreement by dissolving, but only if
someone
On Friday 14 December 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> The party who posted the Sell
> Ticket is then OBLIGATED to cast all eir votes on that decision in the
> same manner as specified by the party who filled the Sell Ticket, but
> only if the voting period on that decision does not end within the
> next
On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 7. Any player may join the Vote Market by announcement. Upon joining
> the Vote Market, 50 VP are created in the possession of that player.
First class?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can giv
95 matches
Mail list logo
