On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I submit the following proposals, "Auctions", AI-1, II-0:
>
> H. Promotor, do you consider the stray typo s after proposal
> to make this fail? -G.
I think it was reasonably unambiguous what yo
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 17:47 -0400, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:37 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 17:33 -0400, omd wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> > Believing the statement in question is obviously completely unreasonable
> >> > [...] th
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 14:40 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [Not part of the gratuitous: I personally wonder about the "specify
> only to amend its rule" clause. Arguably that means I'm required to
> write only "Amend rule X" without specifying an actual textual
> amendment.]
This reminds me a lo
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, ais523 wrote:
> Repealing rule 104 would surely cause a max exodus of everyone who cared
> about Agora, thus causing the game to break. Thus, the game would be
> broken by the repeal, and thus the proposal arguably fails to fulfil
> Fearmonger duties.
Heh.
Gratuitous: I am
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 17:33 -0400, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Believing the statement in question is obviously completely unreasonable
> > [...] therefore the statement is true.
>
> what
I can be an unreasonable person, sometimes.
--
ais523
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Believing the statement in question is obviously completely unreasonable
> [...] therefore the statement is true.
what
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 13:33 -0700, John Smith wrote:
> It appears that omd's judgment on CfJ 2878 has self-ratified. Rule
> 2201 (Self-ratification) does not consider an appeal to be a challenge
> to a judicial declaration. (The CfJ itself is 'suspended', but that
> isn't relevent)
Judgements do
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 25, 2010, at 5:37 AM, ais523 wrote:
>> 6867 O 0 2.0 omd F fix
> AGAINST without an active PSM, making this platonic means we end up in
> unknown gamestate very quickly
The proposal doesn't affect the self-ratification clause...
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 10:35 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I initiate Elections for each of the following offices and nominate
> the corresponding player for the office.
>
> ATC: G.
> Fearmonger: Tiger
> Granulator: Tanner L Swett
> Pariah: ehird
> PSM: Yally
> Referee: Sgeo
>
> I suggest that we
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Sgeo wrote:
> Why would I ever be nominated for anything, especially when I'm (not
> officially) inactive?
I picked 6 players who are (officially) active and don't hold any
offices. You can feel free to decline and/or go one hold.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I initiate Elections for each of the following offices and nominate
> the corresponding player for the office.
>
> ATC: G.
> Fearmonger: Tiger
> Granulator: Tanner L Swett
> Pariah: ehird
> PSM: Yally
> Referee: Sgeo
>
> I suggest that we r
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 13:52 -0400, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:18 AM, ais523 wrote:
> > The caller has provided no argument why the verdict in question is
> > necessarily incorrect, so AFFIRM seems appropriate here. Thinking about
> > it, I'm going to violate a SHOULD and opine AFFIRM W
12 matches
Mail list logo
