On 5 January 2011 02:05, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote:
I object to the intent to make me inactive.
Are you ever going to take a game action that isn't objecting to being
made inactive?
On 5 January 2011 07:01, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
If there is no objection, yes, it can be raised.
I object to 1 megabyte messages; perhaps 512 kilobytes at the maximum?
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 05:33, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 5 January 2011 07:01, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
If there is no objection, yes, it can be raised.
I object to 1 megabyte messages; perhaps 512 kilobytes at the maximum?
I find this to be a reasonable
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I find this to be a reasonable compromise
BobTHJ
Someone make a proposal?
--
Taral tar...@gmail.com
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
I'd vote for it.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
Proposal: All Clogged Up (AI 1, II 0, co-author BobTHJ)
{
H. Distributor Taral is requested to increase the size limit of the
messages sent to the Agora mailing lists hosted at agoranomic.org
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal: Fix Grand Vizier (AI = 2, II = 1, distributable via fee)
AGAINST, it's the most interesting position, and e is *supposed* to be powerful.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 3:58 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I attempt (modulo possible Holiday weirdness) to bestow favours as
possible:
I'm treating this as effective; in my reading, the R1769 other event
is the beginning of the Gregorian month of January, and the
future(-ish;
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 3:58 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I attempt (modulo possible Holiday weirdness) to bestow favours as
possible:
I'm treating this as effective; in my reading, the R1769 other
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:12, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
Proposal: Fix Grand Vizier (AI = 2, II = 1, distributable via fee)
AGAINST, it's the most interesting position, and e is *supposed* to be
powerful.
But
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal: Fix Grand Vizier (AI = 2, II = 1, distributable via fee)
AGAINST, it's the most interesting position, and e is *supposed* to be
powerful.
But being able to arbitrarily resign any office is just too much.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
But being able to arbitrarily resign any office is just too much.
I agree, although I don't think that actually worked anyway.
Yes, it does, as ais523 pointe out to me.
The holder of an elected office CAN resign
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:21 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
But being able to arbitrarily resign any office is just too much.
I agree, although I don't think that actually worked anyway.
Yes, it does, as ais523
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:21 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
But being able to arbitrarily resign any office is just too much.
I agree,
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:02 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:21 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
But being able to
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 18:09 -0600, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:04, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I assume Herald.
Me too!
Alright. I assume the office of Herald. I resign the office of
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:22, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 18:09 -0600, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:04, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I assume Herald.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:28, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:08, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 00:02 +, ais523 wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:39, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:28, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 18:08, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk
ehird wrote:
On 5 January 2011 02:05, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote:
I object to the intent to make me inactive.
Are you ever going to take a game action that isn't objecting to being
made inactive?
I think e objected to at least one of omd's without-8-objections
actions related to eir
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 22:20, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Yally wrote:
Proposal: Fix Grand Vizier (AI = 2, II = 1, distributable via fee)
Delete the following text from Rule 2255 (The Court):
Third Position: Grand Vizier
Influence Level: 5
Position: The Grand
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Amend Rule 2255 (The Court) by appending this text to the section
defining the position of Grand Vizier:
For the purpose of this action, the Grand Vizier is considered to
be the holder of that office.
I don't
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
But this still doesn't get around the issue of that Grand Vizier being
able to resign any office, among others.
Fixing the definition of resigning is probably better than getting rid
of the Vizier.
22 matches
Mail list logo
