On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Arguments:
1. Once the promise is in someone else's hands, G. generally can't
prevent the breach from occurring (see R1504(e)).
2. This promise contained an illegal action when the promise was
created. The judge is
On 24 October 2011 03:27, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I support and do so, nominating omd.
I accept.
Wait - I ended up as Rulekeepor too... I missed that :-S
(I need to pay more attention to what goes on here,
i vote against proposals 7125-7134.
3
mister snuggles
Mister Snuggles wrote:
i vote against proposals 7125-7134.
NttPF, not that it matters.
Amar Chendra wrote:
Government being more transparent is a biased proposal. It is
fundamentally wrong. It is inf act a threat to the nation.
Well, yes (for certain definitions of nation), but there are
some procedural issues with your opposition:
1) You need to register as a player (Rule
are you human i'm so confused
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 16:49, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
are you human i'm so confused
yes i tots m
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3116
== CFJ 3116 ==
If the Promise cited in CFJ 3114 were cashed by ais523, G. would
generally
On 10/24/2011 06:41 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3116
== CFJ 3116 ==
If the Promise cited in CFJ 3114
On 10/24/2011 07:27 PM, omd wrote:
Proposal: No shame in trying (AI=1.7)
Amend Rule 2343 (Victory Cases) by replacing SHAME with NO GLORY.
AGAINST. I like victory having flavorful language.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/24/2011 07:27 PM, omd wrote:
Proposal: No shame in trying (AI=1.7)
Amend Rule 2343 (Victory Cases) by replacing SHAME with NO GLORY.
AGAINST. I like victory having flavorful language.
Maybe SHAME should be
omd wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
3110: Â I opine SHAME
While Rule 754 (2) does not apply to Victory Condition, Rule 2125 (c)
does apply to cause to satisfy a Victory Condition, which neutralizes
this scam independently of Rule 2125 (e).
I wrote:
* NICE TRY, appropriate if the Victory Condition was not
satisfied as described, but the initiator could reasonably
have expected that it was so satisfied
* SHAME, appropriate if the Victory Condition was not satisfied
as described,
13 matches
Mail list logo
