coppro wrote:
>The Promotor CAN distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as
>possible, unless it ceases to be Urgent in the mean time. Failure
>to do so is the Class 1 Crime of Lack of Urgency.
"The Promotor CAN distribute an Urgent Proposal, and SHALL do so as soon
as possib
Am Freitag, den 17.09.2010, 10:13 -0400 schrieb Geoffrey Spear:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Keba wrote:
> > An invasion consisting of one player? (Or miss I someone?) Did I do
> > anything wrong to deal me out?
>
> One player? Blognomic's Riddler took direct action to make you the
> Speak
Wooble wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Keba wrote:
>> An invasion consisting of one player? (Or miss I someone?) Did I do
>> anything wrong to deal me out?
>
> One player? Blognomic's Riddler took direct action to make you the
> Speaker; this conspiracy touches the highest levels of b
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Keba wrote:
> An invasion consisting of one player? (Or miss I someone?) Did I do
> anything wrong to deal me out?
One player? Blognomic's Riddler took direct action to make you the
Speaker; this conspiracy touches the highest levels of both BN and
Agora. And ce
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> If I haven't voted yet, I vote AGAINST each proposal from 6834-6841;
> without a recent referee's report I can't be bothered to figure out
> who's on my team, and I'm not voting FOR an interested proposal by a
> non-team-member as a protest against our Honored Speaker messin
On 25 April 2010 21:07, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Dictatorship Scam (AI=3, II=1, Distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Enact a new rule at power-3:
> coppro CAN, with Notice, cause this Rule to perform one or more
> arbitrary Rule Changes.
> }}}
HELP OH GOD WHAT DO WE DO
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>
>> Proposal: Guaranteed to Pass (AI=3, II=1)
>> {{
>> Increase the Power of Rule 104 to 4.
>> }}
>
> The hell it is. This would increase the amendment number.
it wouldn't, fwiw
--
-c.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 2247 is The Janitor. Did you mean 1750 (Read the Ruleset Week)?
Don't you think it's cruel to punish someone for winning the Janitor
election by making them read the ruleset to find things to clean?
coppro wrote:
> Proposal: Guaranteed to Pass (AI=3, II=1)
> {{
> Increase the Power of Rule 104 to 4.
> }}
The hell it is. This would increase the amendment number.
> Proposal: Cruel and Unusual Punishment (AI=1, II=1)
> {{
> WHEREAS the Ruleset is so long that forcing someone to read it would
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:48 AM, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 09:44 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Proposal: Trophy Repeal (AI=3, II=1)
>> {{
>> Repeal Rule 2105.
>> Repeal Rule 2029.
>> }}
>>
>> Proposal: Guaranteed to Fail (AI=3, II=1)
>> {{
>> Repeal Rule 104.
>> }}
>>
>> Proposal: Guarant
C-walker wrote:
> I vote as follows a number of times equal to my voting limit on each decision:
[snip]
>> 6406 D2 2.0 c-walkerProposal Tweaking Part 2.1
> FOR
Ineffective, you already did so before.
Quazie wrote:
> I vote present on proposals 6403-6406 if possible.
It isn't, you were inactive when they were distributed. You'll be
able to vote again starting with 6414.
comex wrote:
> Proposal: Extra votes? (AI=2)
>
> Amend the following paragraph in Rule 2019:
>
> e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the
> start of an ordinary proposal's voting period has a voting
> limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would
On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 16:10 -0400, comex wrote:
> Proposal: Extra votes? (AI=2)
>
> Amend the following paragraph in Rule 2019:
>
> e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the
> start of an ordinary proposal's voting period has a voting
> limit on that pr
On 10 Nov 2008, at 08:16, Taral wrote:
The frequent distributions are really becoming a nuisance.
Sorry... but there were _sixteen_ proposals.
--
ehird
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It makes sense, but it doesn't work.
Ah, good point.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 9 Nov 2008, at 20:40, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 9 Nov 2008, at 20:23, Warrigal wrote:
It makes sense, but it doesn't work.
Proposals do not have power.
--
ehird
Ignore me and my misreadings.
--
ehird
On 9 Nov 2008, at 20:23, Warrigal wrote:
It makes sense, but it doesn't work.
Proposals do not have power.
--
ehird
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2008, at 19:04, Taral wrote:
>> If it has passed, set the power of "No more distribution spam" to 2.
>
> Nonsensical.
It makes sense, but it doesn't work.
"It has passed" is not defined by the rules; it's not clear
On 9 Nov 2008, at 19:04, Taral wrote:
If it has passed, set the power of "No more distribution spam" to 2.
Nonsensical.
--
ehird
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 October 2008 08:34:18 pm comex wrote:
>> Hmm. I should concatenate 1000 Bayes proposals, and stick an
>> intent to ratify in there.
>
> CFJ 1125
:(
On Wednesday 22 October 2008 08:34:18 pm comex wrote:
> Hmm. I should concatenate 1000 Bayes proposals, and stick an
> intent to ratify in there.
CFJ 1125
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-proposal / kibbutz: Instead of having Bayes make proposals till
> it finds one it will vote for (>= 50%), have it make proposals for a
> fixed amount of real time and pick the one it likes most strongly.
> This should resul
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 October 2008 07:46:51 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Pavitra
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Proto-proposal / kibbutz: Instead of having Bayes make proposals
>> > till it finds one it wi
On Wednesday 22 October 2008 07:46:51 pm Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Pavitra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Proto-proposal / kibbutz: Instead of having Bayes make proposals
> > till it finds one it will vote for (>= 50%), have it make
> > proposals for a fixed amount of rea
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-proposal / kibbutz: Instead of having Bayes make proposals till
> it finds one it will vote for (>= 50%), have it make proposals for a
> fixed amount of real time and pick the one it likes most strongly.
> This should resul
On Wednesday 22 October 2008 05:32:13 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2008, at 23:30, Bayes wrote:
> > Bayes submits the following proposal, titled "Plugging grafts
> > possibility hang,"
> > (AI=1):
>
> comex ran this despite me yelling at him not to.
Proto-proposal / kibbutz: Instead of havin
On 22 Oct 2008, at 23:30, Bayes wrote:
Bayes submits the following proposal, titled "Plugging grafts
possibility hang,"
(AI=1):
comex ran this despite me yelling at him not to.
--
ehird
On 02/10/2008, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 October 2008 05:01:41 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
>> On 1 Oct 2008, at 22:35, Ben Caplan wrote:
>> > I believe it was decided that the most natural Monsterization
>> > of "judgment" was "Monsteredict". Can you write a script to make
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 05:01:41 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2008, at 22:35, Ben Caplan wrote:
> > I believe it was decided that the most natural Monsterization
> > of "judgment" was "Monsteredict". Can you write a script to make
> > that kind of analysis?
>
> Did I say it'd produce the
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:27, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> If I'm not mistaken, BAYES actually stands for "BAYES is not an acronym."
>
> BAYES stands for BAYES: Acronym? You Egg! Shenanigans...
It's a Calvin and Hobbes-style acronym for t
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:27, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:09, Ian Kelly wrote:
What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are
anything that we might actually c
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:27, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:09, Ian Kelly wrote:
What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are
anything that we might actually
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:09, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are
>>> anything that we might actually consider adopting.
>>
>> Bayes is a
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:09, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are
>> anything that we might actually consider adopting.
>
> Bayes is a Fully Mechanical Automation of Gamular Playing, Striving
> to Play in As Many F
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are
> anything that we might actually consider adopting.
I would vote to repeal Rule 2142...
--
hopefully
minor evil
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:09, Ian Kelly wrote:
What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are
anything that we might actually consider adopting.
-root
Bayes is a Fully Mechanical Automation of Gamular Playing, Striving
to Play in As Many Forms As Possible, Regardless of Skill Level,
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It isn't usually meant to submit this fast, but comex fixed it so that the
> proposals were shorter, so this is an example.
What exactly is the goal of this? None of these proposals are
anything that we might actually consi
On 1 Oct 2008, at 23:02, Bayes wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled "Ordinary for a of
ff
"
(AI=1):
{{{
Repeal rule 2142
Modify Rule 2138, replace: c) A term explicitly defined by that
chamber.
A
On 1 Oct 2008, at 22:35, Ben Caplan wrote:
I believe it was decided that the most natural Monsterization
of "judgment" was "Monsteredict". Can you write a script to make that
kind of analysis?
Did I say it'd produce the most natural monsterization all the time?
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 03:20:04 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2008, at 20:54, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Make it a bit more grammar-specific and I'll support it for
> > Mad Scientist.
>
> Heh, it wouldn't be able to do Monsterization atm, but I could
> definitely write one - detecting nouns sho
On 1 Oct 2008, at 20:54, Ed Murphy wrote:
Make it a bit more grammar-specific and I'll support it for
Mad Scientist.
Heh, it wouldn't be able to do Monsterization atm, but I could
definitely write one - detecting nouns shouldn't be too hard.
tusho wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2008, at 19:05, Bayes wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal, titled "No spring ii office
>> and" (AI=1):
>> {{{
>>
>> If proposal 5111 was adopted, amend rule 1871 by adding the
>> following information:
>> with this text:
>> the sum of the source and destinatio
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2008, at 19:05, Bayes wrote:
>
>>
>> I submit the following proposal, titled "No spring ii office and" (AI=1):
>> {{{
>>
>> If proposal 5111 was adopted, amend rule 1871 by adding the following
>> information:
>> with this text:
>> the sum of
On 1 Oct 2008, at 19:05, Bayes wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled "No spring ii office
and" (AI=1):
{{{
If proposal 5111 was adopted, amend rule 1871 by adding the
following information:
with this text:
the sum of the source and destination are the nominees, quorum is
1/2
On 1 Oct 2008, at 19:06, Bayes wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled " the" (AI=1):
{{{
Was only meant to send once, sorry.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 15:16, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposals:
[snip]
> Create a rule titled "Grand Poobah" with Power=2 and the text:
> {{
> Create a rule titled "The Grand Poobah" with Power 2 and this text:
Oops?
-woggle
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any member of the species Homo sapiens, past or present, is a person
Why do you say "member of the species Homo sapiens" rather than
"human"? The latter is over 5 times as short counting by syllables,
words, letters, characters,
> ---
> Replace the following sentence in R 2124
>
> The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support
> nor object to it.
>
> with
>
> The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support
> nor object to it. A partnership of which the Executor is a party
> CANNOT support nor
comex wrote:
On Sunday 07 October 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
On Sunday 07 October 2007 16:26:07 comex wrote:
On Sunday 07 October 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
I vote SUPPORT on proposals 5246 through 5253.
I CFJ on the following:
pikhq voted FOR a proposal on or about Sun, 7 Oct 2007
16
pikhq wrote:
On Sunday 07 October 2007 16:26:07 comex wrote:
On Sunday 07 October 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
I vote SUPPORT on proposals 5246 through 5253.
I CFJ on the following:
pikhq voted FOR a proposal on or about Sun, 7 Oct 2007
16:19:46 -0600.
I vote FOR those proposals, making t
On Sunday 07 October 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> On Sunday 07 October 2007 16:26:07 comex wrote:
> > On Sunday 07 October 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > > I vote SUPPORT on proposals 5246 through 5253.
> >
> > I CFJ on the following:
> > pikhq voted FOR a proposal on or about Sun, 7 Oct 2007
On Sunday 07 October 2007 16:26:07 comex wrote:
> On Sunday 07 October 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
> > I vote SUPPORT on proposals 5246 through 5253.
>
> I CFJ on the following:
> pikhq voted FOR a proposal on or about Sun, 7 Oct 2007
16:19:46 -0600.
>
I vote FOR those proposals, making the C
Zefram wrote:
Amend rule 2149 by inserting the words "or which e is reckless
regarding the veracity of" at the end of each sentence in the second
paragraph.
I still think this should define "reckless", perhaps by example.
On 6/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
> The ballot allotment time of a proposal of which the chamber
The term "chamber" is no longer defined. Would be clearer if you
define it.
Whoops.
>Increase the power of Rule 2142 to 2, and amend it by
>replacing the text "1
Ian Kelly wrote:
> The ballot allotment time of a proposal of which the chamber
The term "chamber" is no longer defined. Would be clearer if you
define it.
>Increase the power of Rule 2142 to 2, and amend it by
>replacing the text "1.1" with "2".
Been thinking about this. Kicking a proposa
On 6/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, it was just a bit of wordplay.
I'm fairly certain it was also a historical reference.
--
Maud
Roger Hicks wrote:
>I was a bit confused by the Threat thing anyway. Was that a hold-over from
>some past mechanic?
No, it was just a bit of wordplay.
-zefram
[Moves the PT reporting requirement into the PT rule. Incidentally
removes the "Threat" item, which we're not using, from rule 1377.
Also gives a more accurate overall description of the Herald.]
I was a bit confused by the Threat thing anyway. Was that a hold-over from
some past mechanic?
root wrote:
As somebody else pointed out recently, one of the original purpose for
Agoran Contracts IIRC was to house the list of cards, which had grown
long enough that it was just taking up too much space in the ruleset.
If a future rule gets similarly long, we could just amend Rule 1681 to
Zefram wrote:
> We can currently have rules modified by rules, so no problem there.
> We've previously had subgames involving non-proposed rule changes,
> of course, most notably the Frankenstein Monster.
I didn't say it was impossible (or even difficult) in theory,
it's just a question of elega
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>But lest we forget, a more important reason to separate was that we
>wanted card text to be modifiable by means other than Proposals
We can currently have rules modified by rules, so no problem there.
We've previously had subgames involving non-proposed rule changes,
of course,
On 6/14/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As the current Contracts rule requires proposals to amend contracts,
it doesn't offer that benefit. Also, the current Contracts
rule doesn't allow much in resolving conflicts between
Contracts and Rules. I think a compromise is hard-coding each
Zefram wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> > the list of cards, which had grown
> >long enough that it was just taking up too much space in the ruleset.
>
> Because, of course, it is physically impossible for an email message to
> be longer than 347 kB.
It was also a ma
On 6/14/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
> the list of cards, which had grown
>long enough that it was just taking up too much space in the ruleset.
Because, of course, it is physically impossible for an email message to
be longer than 347
Ian Kelly wrote:
> the list of cards, which had grown
>long enough that it was just taking up too much space in the ruleset.
Because, of course, it is physically impossible for an email message to
be longer than 347 kB.
-zefram
On 6/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If that's all you're concerned about, why not support Zefram's
> proposal to require regular publication instead?
>
> -root
Because I don't see the benefit of having more than one agreement that all
players of Agora must be bound by. The r
Ian Kelly wrote:
>If that's all you're concerned about,
It's not all e's concerned about, as e indicated ("part of the reason
..."). Clearly, e has some taste.
-zefram
If that's all you're concerned about, why not support Zefram's
proposal to require regular publication instead?
-root
Because I don't see the benefit of having more than one agreement that all
players of Agora must be bound by. The rules are broad and adaptable enough
that there is no need. I
Roger Hicks wrote:
>I have yet to see this elusive Agoran Contract...
It's concerned with advertising Agora, and institutes the official
position (but not an office) of Envoy. I have no idea who is presently
the Envoy. The whole Contract is rather being ignored. Amending rule
2135 to be more ge
On 6/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/13/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> >R2109 Agoran Contracts is repealed.
>
> Not planning to keep our one Agoran Contract on as a rule?
I have yet to see this elusive Agoran Contract...part of the reason why I'
On 6/13/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
>R2109 Agoran Contracts is repealed.
Not planning to keep our one Agoran Contract on as a rule?
I have yet to see this elusive Agoran Contract...part of the reason why I'm
in favor of canning this rule.
R1626 Applications is
Roger Hicks wrote:
>R2109 Agoran Contracts is repealed.
Not planning to keep our one Agoran Contract on as a rule?
>R1626 Applications is repealed.
R1365 will need some amendment.
-zefram
Michael Slone wrote:
>Don't you mean ``to become registered'' or ``to register''?
No.
>Otherwise, saying ``root is currently registered'' is the same as
>saying ``root currently becomes a player'', which is odd at best.
In that sentence "registered" is an adjective, not a verb.
[CFJ by announce
On 6/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Each entity at any time either is or is not a player. The verb
"to be registered" means to become a player, and the verb "to be
deregistered" means to cease to be a player.
Don't you mean ``to become registered'' or ``to register'
Zefram wrote:
> Amend rule 1742 by deleting the sentence
>
> If a Civil CFJ is called by anyone who is not party to that
> agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed.
Yet another terrible idea. What right does Agora have to stick
its nose in an agreement when all its m
Roger Hicks wrote:
>Does this mean that Agora can judge agreements that aren't made under Agoran
>law? ie. my Bob's Quality Cards agreement?
That depends entirely on the interpretation of the first paragraph
of R1742.
-zefram
proposal: enforce agreements
AI: 1
{{{
Amend rule 1742 by deleting the sentence
If a Civil CFJ is called by anyone who is not party to that
agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed.
}}}
-zefram
Does this mean that Agora can judge agreements that aren't made u
Sure, that makes sense. I forgot about that rule.
I will re-propose shortly.
BobTHJ
On 5/25/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/25/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If a provision were added to pardon errors that appear on the
Secretary's
> weekly report if they go unnoti
On 5/25/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If a provision were added to pardon errors that appear on the Secretary's
weekly report if they go unnoticed for a week following that report, would
that be satisfactory? At the most you would be looking at unrolling 2 weeks
of history then (one
On 5/25/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/25/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If a rule states that a Magnate pays a specified type and amount of
> property, then that property is transferred to the designated receiving
> Magnate instantly (if possible) upon that requirem
On 5/25/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If a rule states that a Magnate pays a specified type and amount of
property, then that property is transferred to the designated receiving
Magnate instantly (if possible) upon that requirement taking effect.
Ick. My apologies for not having c
Zefram wrote:
quazie wrote:
They can be removed from being judges on them can't they??
Takes a while. I think we've got some still waiting on Peter.
1657-8, but the deliberation period has expired, so CotC comex
may recuse em at will.
(The CotC database should be mostly caught up at this
quazie wrote:
>They can be removed from being judges on them can't they??
Takes a while. I think we've got some still waiting on Peter.
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
comex wrote:
How so?
We have in fact had several CFJs assigned to them.
-zefram
They can be removed from being judges on them can't they??
comex wrote:
>How so?
We have in fact had several CFJs assigned to them.
-zefram
On 5/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[The long-term inactive players have been screwing up CFJ assignment.
How so? R698 only says "Each active player is eligible to judge..."
Ed Murphy wrote:
We really should re-enact Switches.
I support this
Zefram wrote:
I hereby submit the following proposal, titled "initialise activity",
and set its AI to 1.1:
{{{
Amend rule 2130 by appending the paragraph:
Registration as a player causes the new player to become active.
All non-players are inactive.
}}}
I hereby submit the follo
101 - 189 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
