0x44 on Sat, 4 Apr 2009 22:00:48 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Wording it in a completely non-objectionable manner


- 0x44

On Apr 4, 2009, at 23:48, Warrigal <ihope127+w@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Warrigal <ihope127+w@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I submit a proposal, titled "Wording it in a completely
non-objectionable manner":

{Create a new rule, titled "Foolishness":

{Those who have been foolish enough to agree to the ruleset of B Nomic
on Agora are hereby burdened with the obligation to ensure that B
Nomic follows the rules of Agora. If a party to the ruleset of B Nomic
on Agora comes to their senses and ceases to be a party, this
obligation no longer applies to them, as it's really a very silly

This will make B Nomic a partnership and allow it to register. It will
not allow Agora's rule of law to seep in and order anyone around,
unless the orderees have decided they want to be ordered around for
some reason.


So, the obligatory question. Why did you vote AGAINST this?

spoon-business mailing list
spoon-discuss mailing list