I would like to throw in my support for the continued existence of
second-class players. I'd rather have partnerships back, in fact.
On 3 April 2013 03:25, Wes Contreras w...@antitribu.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:20 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
E just submitted a proposal, which is one
On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 12:52 -0700, Wes Contreras wrote:
Can anyone explain why Second-Class Players exist? Because they
significantly complicate the Rules without any apparent benefit.
It occurred to us that perhaps we should ask before drafting Proposals
to remove them.
Basically they're a
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Also, because of Bucky, our resident participating non-player. Giving
him control of second-class players is one of the main means via which
he participates.
As far as we can tell, there are currently no actions e can take
E just submitted a proposal, which is one such action; there are others.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 2, 2013, at 2:55 PM, Wes Contreras w...@antitribu.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Also, because of Bucky, our resident participating
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:20 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
E just submitted a proposal, which is one such action; there are others.
It would be trivial to enable Golems to submit Proposals.
It is somewhat less trivial to penetrate the vague hand-waving of
there are others to identify what other
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013, Wes Contreras wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
Simply put: the rules about second-class players are there because we
have, from time to time, had second-class players (only partnerships,
as far as I remember), and so it's
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
If we don't want them in general, we'd need to make sure that the
rules explicitly forbid anyone but a first-class person from being
defined as a person.
We find the concept of Second-Class Persons to be useful, and
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013, Wes Contreras wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
If we don't want them in general, we'd need to make sure that the
rules explicitly forbid anyone but a first-class person from being
defined as a person.
We find the
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Slave golems have been used for ownership scams, criminal scams, and
currency scams. Anything genuinely useful in there?
It used to be possible to let partnerships (not slave golems) vote by
spending assets on their
9 matches
Mail list logo
