On 9 Dec 2008, at 05:06, Sgeo wrote:
Ninja Nomic, a nomic located on Facebook, has been inactive for
quite some time.
http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=7432501077
Um, okay.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9 Dec 2008, at 05:06, Sgeo wrote:
Ninja Nomic, a nomic located on Facebook, has been inactive for quite some
time.
http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=7432501077
Um, okay.
This is clearly an
Sgeo wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote:
Wed 5 Nov 00:58:13 P1 and P2 amended; P3 through P100 come and go
In case the previous message was ineffective:
[snip the murders of partnerships P1-P100]
I CFJ on the statement: P17 has the Patent
Sgeo wrote:
Ninja Nomic, a nomic located on Facebook, has been inactive for quite some
time.
http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=7432501077
Are you planning to invite them here?
On 9 Dec 2008, at 18:45, Ed Murphy wrote:
Are you planning to invite them here?
23. Chunk Norris gets a vote on every proposal of note.
He always votes Yes when a new rule is mising an s.
Otherwise the vote is No from Chuck Norris.
Please no.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sgeo wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote:
Wed 5 Nov 00:58:13 P1 and P2 amended; P3 through P100 come and go
In case the previous message was ineffective:
[snip the murders of
ehird wrote:
On 9 Dec 2008, at 18:45, Ed Murphy wrote:
Are you planning to invite them here?
23. Chunk Norris gets a vote on every proposal of note.
He always votes Yes when a new rule is mising an s.
Otherwise the vote is No from Chuck Norris.
Please no.
Coming from the co-author of
On 9 Dec 2008, at 20:26, Ed Murphy wrote:
Coming from the co-author of Bayes, this is purest hilarity.
To be fair, I could be commenting on the typo that _Chunk_ Norris
votes only yes, and Chuck Norris only no.
{
If a judge makes a judgment that mentions the rule, if the judgment
doesn't include the amendment number, the judge has violated this
rule.
}
I can't actually find a reference to the amendment number of rules in
the ruleset..
Sgeo wrote:
If a judge makes a judgment that mentions the rule, if the judgment
doesn't include the amendment number, the judge has violated this
rule.
This would go somewhere in Rule 2205, and would presumably be downgraded
to SHOULD to match the rest of that rule.
In most cases, you could
[stuff]
*Rules marked with an asterisk contain exceptions to pre-existing
rules, but are allowed in the ruleset because the admin got tired of
people not playing the game.
That is a bit disturbing.
On 9 Dec 2008, at 21:43, Sgeo wrote:
That is a bit disturbing.
Allowed? So the admin can ignore changes he doesn't like? I see.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Allowed? So the admin can ignore changes he doesn't like? I see.
There's no true gamestate, so why should the recordkeepors even care
what the rules say? As long as the community agrees to go along with
what their reports
While I don't question the adding of a dice server as a send-only
address, wouldn't it be proper to add the *correct* address? :)
I intend to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send-only address to the
Business Forum without objection.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Chris Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send-only address to the
Business Forum without objection.
Given that this is just a correction of [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is
already approved without objection, I have simply made the
#P agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
#S 6
#D 3
#R 1
#L 1
#C This is a test, I promise.
#T This is a test, I promise.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#P agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
#S 6
#D 3
#R 1
#L 1
#C This is a test, I promise.
#T This is a test, I promise.
Well, that failed pretty hard.
On 9 Dec 2008, at 22:22, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
There's no true gamestate, so why should the recordkeepors even care
what the rules say? As long as the community agrees to go along with
what their reports say, do we even need rules to be playing nomic?
/rolleyes
On 9 Dec 2008, at 23:35, Sgeo wrote:
#P agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
#S 6
#D 3
#R 1
#L 1
#C This is a test, I promise.
#T This is a test, I promise.
Next time to the proper dice forum.
#P [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#S 6
#D 3
#R 1
#L 1
#C This is a test, I promise.
#T This is a test, I promise.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] works just fine, no? That's where I always send my random
rolls.
Billy Pilgrim
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Chris Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to add [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a send-only address to the
While that's where you *send* the random rolls, the roll results
actually come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's what Taral was talking
about.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] works just fine, no? That's where I always send my random
rolls.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Chris Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While that's where you *send* the random rolls, the roll results
actually come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's what Taral was talking
about.
Ah, thanks. I'd never actually noticed it wasn't coming back from the same
address.
The nomic-ness of the first couple sentences of this paragraph struck me:
The tricky part here is that Article 1 of the Constitution stipulates
that the Senate is the Judge of Elections, Returns and Qualifications
of its own members. The Senate actually has fairly broad latitude on
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The nomic-ness of the first couple sentences of this paragraph struck me:
On another subject, back when you were discussing what would happen
if Obama lost the citizenship issue (now mostly moot as SCOTUS has
declined to hear the case), I meant to point
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The nomic-ness of the first couple sentences of this paragraph struck me:
On another subject, back when you were discussing what would happen
if Obama lost the citizenship issue (now
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:38 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This message serves to announce and make effective changes to
the list of parties to the PerlNomic Partnership (a public contract).
The
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:38 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This message serves to announce and make effective changes to
the list of parties to the PerlNomic Partnership (a public contract).
The
28 matches
Mail list logo
