Will do.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 9:03 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2016, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > H. Dictator Alexis (and anyone else), I intend to annotate such changes
> to
> > the ruleset as follows:
> >
> > Amended(N) by Decree (Alexis), dd Month
>
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> H. Dictator Alexis (and anyone else), I intend to annotate such changes to
> the ruleset as follows:
>
> Amended(N) by Decree (Alexis), dd Month
>
> Decrees would not be numbered. Let me know if this sounds suitable.
Also, for future sanity,
On Nov 6, 2016, at 5:57 AM, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 02:57:43 -0500
> Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>>> I CFJ, barring Aris "If Proposal 7821 were resolved right now, the
>>> outcome would be ADOPTED.”
>>
>> If.
>>
>> It might be premature to
On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 1:16 PM ais523 wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-11-06 at 12:09 -0600, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> > Is there a relevant CFJ that suggests '7 days' equals 168 hours,
> > instead of 7 calendar days?
> Not sure about a CFJ, but it's been game custom for at
On Sun, 2016-11-06 at 12:09 -0600, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> Is there a relevant CFJ that suggests '7 days' equals 168 hours,
> instead of 7 calendar days?
Not sure about a CFJ, but it's been game custom for at least years, and
probably decades.
The relevant rule is 1023b, which states that
Is there a relevant CFJ that suggests '7 days' equals 168 hours, instead of
7 calendar days?
On Sun, Nov 6, 2016, 10:53 nichdel wrote:
> On 11/06/2016 04:57 AM, Luis Ressel wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 02:57:43 -0500
> > Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >
> >>> I CFJ, barring Aris "If Proposal 7821 were resolved right now, the
> >>> outcome would be
On 11/06/2016 04:57 AM, Luis Ressel wrote:
On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 02:57:43 -0500
Owen Jacobson wrote:
I CFJ, barring Aris "If Proposal 7821 were resolved right now, the
outcome would be ADOPTED.”
If.
It might be premature to declare victory, since proposal 7821 is NOT
yet
8 matches
Mail list logo