[Nomic] Money Money Money: Summary (3)

[Stuart Moore]

Carrie Oliver wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:09:40 +0100, Stuart Moore <stjm2@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>>Updated Summary: We're waiting for Dave and Carrie, since the rule of
>>Assumed Consent appears to be functionally equivalent to hitting the
>>game with a dodo.
> 
> 
> I think I should be offended.

Don't be, it was a nice dodo...

> 
> 
>>Proposal for the creation of the rule "Screw you, Anti Capitalists"
>>(Version 2, see 18:39 25/09)
>>For:         Stuart,  JJ, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester, Mike,
>>Adam
>>Against:
>>No comment:  David, , Carrie,
> 
> 
> Aye, althought I believe I have already said so. And isn't assumed
> consent now active so it doesn't matter!

My apologies for not making this clearer, I proposed a 2nd version of 
the rule in response to people's suggestions

> 
> 
>>Proposal for the creation of the rule "A job? What's that then?"
>>For:         Stuart, Carrie, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester,
>>Mike, Adam, JJ
>>Against:
>>No comment:  David,
>>Reserving Judgement: 
>>
>>Proposal for the creation of the rule "Bureaucrats (Inc)"
>>For:         Stuart, Jonathan,  Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester
>>Against:     Carrie, Mike, JJ, Adam
>>No comment:  David,
>>Reserving Judgement:
>>
>>"Who's the banker in the black?"
>>For:         Stuart, JJ, Jonathan, Martin O'Leary, Martin Lester, Mike, Adam
>>Against:
>>No Comment: David, , Carrie, ,
>>
> 
> Aye. Once again I really don't have to say this do I?

Assumed Consent seems (to me) to be broken, so I'm not going to use it 
(until I consider it fixed). See "It's broke, so let's fix it" for 
proposed fix.