On 4 June 2011 05:03, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Charles Walker
charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
7068 2 Walker Spending Points
CoE: I withdrew this version and submitted a fixed one which prevents
spending the same points on multiple actions.
ehird wrote:
On 2 June 2011 06:16, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Does it really (asks the Assessor, expecting the unexpected)?
I vote AGAINT proposal 7068.
As usual, this is deemed ineffective.
For Droowl's benefit, misspellings are generally covered by
Rule 754 (1), but AGAINT
On 5 June 2011 20:58, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
As usual, this is deemed ineffective.
The ballots I submitted where I used AGAINT many times and then
defined it are still OK, though, yes?
On 2 June 2011 07:07, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
AGAINST as it would make proposal enactment have only power 2, which likely
breaks the game
Thanks to AIAN very little actually truly breaks the game in this sense.
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 12:36 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 2 June 2011 07:07, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
AGAINST as it would make proposal enactment have only power 2, which likely
breaks the game
Thanks to AIAN very little actually truly breaks the game in this sense.
On 2 June 2011 12:41, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
AIAN isn't massively effective, though; although it prevents the game
breaking, it gives no information on what the best option to recover it
might be. (If there's a dictatorship scam that exists even in the new
ruleset, for
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
Honestly, I feel like it should trigger whenever there's no way to
change the blah blah blah /that most players know of/.
How pragmatic.
On 2 June 2011 12:54, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
How pragmatic.
It's pragtonism.
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
Honestly, I feel like it should trigger whenever there's no way to
change the blah blah blah /that most players know of/.
How pragmatic.
Proto:
Amend Rule 1698
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 23:40 -0400, omd wrote:
7068 2 Walker Spending Points
AGAINST; I think I can perform multiple spending actions with a single
destruction (but a general-purpose definition of cost that was
careful about this could also be used by promises and would be pretty
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011, omd wrote:
7063 2 G. Switcher Fixer Upper
AGAINST
7072 1.7 woggle Judicial Rank is Dead
AGAINST
7073 3 woggle Compression Artifact
AGAINST
??? A points thing?
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Benjamin Caplan
celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 23:40 -0400, omd wrote:
7068 2 Walker Spending Points
AGAINST; I think I can perform multiple spending actions with a single
destruction (but a general-purpose definition of
On Tue, 31 May 2011, omd wrote:
7063 2 G. Switcher Fixer Upper
AGAINST
7072 1.7 woggle Judicial Rank is Dead
AGAINST
7073 3 woggle Compression Artifact
AGAINST
??? A points thing?
13 matches
Mail list logo
