On 18 June 2011 05:27, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Inactive players don't count towards the quorum.
Good point; that slipped my mind.
Still, the inactive-deregistration mechanism exists for a reason...
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 23:25, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 18 June 2011 05:22, Sgeo wrote:
> > I object.
>
> I intend, without objection, to deregister Sgeo.
>
> You are inactive and raising the quorum.
>
Inactive players don't count towards the quorum.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Yeah, I stared at this for a while when cutting and pasting just now and
> > wondered why it was this way but just left it. How's this:
> >
> > If a decision to adopt a proposal does not result in an
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Yeah, I stared at this for a while when cutting and pasting just now and
> wondered why it was this way but just left it. How's this:
>
> If a decision to adopt a proposal does not result in an outcome of
> ADOPTED, it does not take
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Pavitra wrote:
> On 06/17/2011 01:50 PM, omd wrote:
> >>When a person creates a proposal, e SHOULD ensure that it
> >>specifies one or more changes to the gamestate.
> >
> > I've always thought this text was really ugly.
>
> I have a feeling that this used to say so
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, omd wrote:
> While you're at it, two suggestions:
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > A proposal with a decision on which the option selected by Agora
> > is not ADOPTED does not take effect, rules to the contrary
> > notwithstanding.
>
>
On 06/17/2011 01:50 PM, omd wrote:
>>When a person creates a proposal, e SHOULD ensure that it
>>specifies one or more changes to the gamestate.
>
> I've always thought this text was really ugly.
I have a feeling that this used to say something like "a proposal SHOULD
specify one or more
While you're at it, two suggestions:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> A proposal with a decision on which the option selected by Agora
> is not ADOPTED does not take effect, rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding.
This is worded this way due to an old scam. It re
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Pavitra wrote:
> On 06/16/2011 08:25 PM, omd wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> CFJ: Rule 2344 was amended in the same message that this case
> >> was initiated.
> >>
> >> Evidence: the above text.
> >
> > Gratuitous: The President's power
9 matches
Mail list logo
