On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:18 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, why is everybody (except one voting PRESENT, apparently) against
this? Does it break something?
Some people prefer to have the right to do the thousands if not
millions of non-game-related actions they perform on a daily
Wooble wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:18 AM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, why is everybody (except one voting PRESENT, apparently) against
this? Does it break something?
Some people prefer to have the right to do the thousands if not
millions of non-game-related actions they
2008/6/16 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
5547 D1 2ais523 none
FOR
5548 D1 3Murphy Chronological order
FOR
5549 D1 2Wooble Earning Interest
FOR
5550 O1 1Ivan Hope Tongue-tied
AGAINST * 3, FOR * 1
5551 O1 1BobTHJ Empower the Notary
On Monday 16 June 2008 10:13:14 ihope wrote:
Hmm, yes, you're probably right about the contract-defined actions
thing. I would rather have a sentence or two stating that the
gamestate can only be changed as the rules allow than a list of what's
regulated and what's not that uses ambiguous
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 16 June 2008 10:13:14 ihope wrote:
Hmm, yes, you're probably right about the contract-defined actions
thing. I would rather have a sentence or two stating that the
gamestate can only be changed as the rules allow
On Monday 16 June 2008 6:39:52 Nick Vanderweit wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ben Caplan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You'd have to have a good definition of gamestate.
If it's not explicitly prohibited, then why bother disallowing it?
We'll prohibit what we see as counter to our
6 matches
Mail list logo
