On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Fool wrote:
> This fails, first, because we're in a gerontocracy and you didn't wait four
> days.
Oops.
> Second, the way I'm reading "Democratization fee" (rule 2374) applies to
> setting the chamber of a proposal to democratic (ie before distro). It does
> not
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
On 25 Aug 2013, at 08:51, omd wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
COE: That is not ambiguous as it has exactly one reasonable interpretation.
I transfer Y5 to the Assessor (Oerjan).
I'm treating this as having failed.
On 25 Aug 2013, at 08:51, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> COE: That is not ambiguous as it has exactly one reasonable interpretation.
>
> I transfer Y5 to the Assessor (Oerjan).
I'm treating this as having failed.
On 25 Aug 2013, at 02:01, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Charles Walker
> wrote:
>> I just think we're having the wrong conversation. We should be talking about
>> new gameplay ideas.
>
> No. New gameplay ideas are for when the core is working. It is not
> right now. The fo
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> New COE: The Rule entitled "Government" is not listed in the last Full
> Logical Ruleset.
Yes, it is...
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, omd wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
No. New gameplay ideas are for when the core is working. It is not
right now. The four most important offices are all empty. We do not
have the resources to build new gameplay.
I am vaguely inclined to take a K
6 matches
Mail list logo
