315400+ entries in 1.895s

jcpham: can
i do the queen victoria wave
jcpham: in any way that
i'm aware of
jcpham:
i cannot benefit from any of this
jurov:
i'd rule "let mircea screw them, so they prefer coinbr"
jurov: lol
i realized
i can't enter rota even if
i wanted
pigeons: except
i pay you to clean my house topless
jcpham: fwiw
i have 0 business relationship with any asset or exchange
jcpham: when
i intentiaonally mispelled it
jcpham: you know
i had too google the correct spelling of it
mircea_popescu: hey, you judge the case,
i judge your judgement. seems logical neh ?
mircea_popescu: bullshit "claimant is always right and mp is annoying and rich" judgements
i don't need a court for, they're a dime a dozen.
mircea_popescu: normally
i would have loved to say yes, but under the circumstances
i don't see myself signing.
Namworld:
I'll try and find the link
I guess
Namworld:
I don't know. Who's in the rota? How do
I start anything?
Namworld: So, can
I use the rota for GIGA.ETF...
markedathome:
I think that it does show that the rota needs to have area of jusrisdiction and contracts specifically stated, either in the case, the rota site/faq and in nominating the selection of the judges
mircea_popescu: Jan 05 22:13:53 <mircea_popescu> BUT! FOR SRS!
I AM KEEPING ROUNDED SUMS! NOOBS BEWARE!
jcpham:
i was peronally aware of the idea of it, yes
jcpham:
i think if you go out of your way to make that sentence known
jcpham: because
i read it then
jcpham:
i have the type of memory where
i read things and usually cannot forget them
markedathome:
I thought it was with two deposits of 130btc and only one order, along with not being able to sign with the originating key.
jcpham: sorry
i didn't know you switched
jcpham:
i'm dependant on google translate
pigeons:
i cant read his blog it asks for a fee
jcpham:
i suggest a new irc channel for this discussion should it arise again
jcpham:
i would like to re-read it if it still there
mircea_popescu: pigeons why would
i "settle before the rota" ? what bs is that?
jcpham:
I thought you had specifcs, like
markedathome: the /faq.html entry for DEPOSIT{sum}
I thought would have had the same text as that of the command (in fact all of the commands should)
pigeons:
i knew this was policy, but in this particular case, it was reasonable that mircea_popescu credit the amount showed to have been sent
jcpham:
i'm still looking for the actual wording on MPEX (now)
mircea_popescu:
i can clearly see in retrospect how this "obvious" point was only obvious to me.
mircea_popescu: reading the above,
i now regred
i didn't more clearly stress the supremacy of contract point
jcpham:
i would seem that due to the lack of rules, the rota can make all sorts of WILDLY INACCURATE decisions
jcpham:
i can see him not getting his money back
jcpham: but
i don't like the winner/loser description
mircea_popescu:
i mean, why ? run the risk of purely unilateral sidetaking... to what avail ? makes no sense.
mircea_popescu: but
i squarely don't see how anyone would ever consider responding to a case, ever.
jcpham:
i think everyone had the best intentions
jcpham:
i wouldn't think so either
jcpham: if you relegate me to customer service,
I'm going to serve your customers
jcpham: yes but
i thought there was wording that said something along the lines of "if it is wrong, you do not get it back"
pigeons:
i thought about giving it to mp since he does say he keeps errors, but in law that wont hold up, thats not reasonable
jcpham: because
i remember readin it
jcpham:
i know it is somewhere
jurov: if
i'd have a policy saying to clients "if you make a mistake, screw you" and there's no real reason why it has to be so, it's only reasonable the court would say "screw your policy"
jcpham:
i'd like to know where the original wording is.....
dub:
I took a guy to court for selling me a boat that leaked, the ruled in his favour because we didnt have anything about it not leaking in a contract
dub:
I understand how mircea_popescu feels though
dub: well then the rota wasn't what
I and apparently others thought
pigeons: dub: that is exactly how
i felt
mircea_popescu: if that actually is the case,
i should certainly dissolve it.
jcpham:
i see your point, but based on the details of this case
jcpham:
i do not agree with that
jcpham: the only other option
i would've entertained was for both parties to lose
mircea_popescu:
i think for everyone else its "o, that thing that couldn't have worked didn't ? o wow."
jurov: <jurov> mircea, so if
i mismail the keys, they get to keep the house? is it what you're saying?
mircea_popescu:
i doubt it has any relevance to anyone other than the ppl involved tho
jcpham:
i think if you want to preserve this in posterity for all to comment on, it needs to be moved elsewhere
pigeons: nope
i can only see this one page
jurov: mircea, so if
i mail the keys, they get to keep the house? is it what you're saying?
mircea_popescu: dude
i dunno, seriously, mail your house keys to some random address
jurov: oh, so better take everything.
i see.
dub:
I think the rota did mpex a favour ruling this way
jurov: mircea
i don't understand one thing. why you can't just set a hefty fee for resolving mistakes?
Namworld: So... can
I use the rota for the unclaimed giga.etf case? =P
mod6:
i feel like im taking crazy pills
pigeons:
i asked prior about that inferred agreement and mp said it wasnt what it appeared to us
mircea_popescu: yeah, well,
i guess this shows why the random person, even if well meaning, can not be a judge.
mircea_popescu: pigeons
i didn't "cause" him to send rounded numbers dood.