Antonio Dolcetta on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:18:19 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] Oracle Report 26/07

Roger Hicks wrote:
> On 6/26/07, Peter Cooper Jr. <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> (Although something interesting crossed my mind that I wanted to
>> share: Had there been someone else calling Consultation 11
>> Inconsistent, and the Primo Corporation had called it Consistent, we'd
>> have had a bit of a paradox, where if it were a player it would be a
>> player, and if it weren't a player (and thus couldn't call it
>> Consistent), then it wouldn't be a player. We've got a *lot* in our
>> ruleset that assumes that we know who is and isn't a player...)
> I was pondering this, but Primo's charter does not permit it to make
> claims implicitly. There would have had to be a vote of the
> shareholders, and it didn't appear there would be enough time (nor
> possibly enough support).
> BobTHJ

By the same reasoning are you sure Primo's charter allows you to vote in 
B Nomic on Primo's behalf ?
If I'm not mistaken it says "Nomic Decisions", if a Claim doesn't count 
as a Nomic Decision, then why do normal votes ?
Not that it makes any difference, since apparently B Nomic allows you to 
vote for Primo regardless.

spoon-discuss mailing list