Okay, other than some wording issues, this is functional. However, I do
have some issues.
On 10/15/2018 7:13 PM, ATMunn wrote:
so basically this is super clunky and probably not going to work, but if
you think there's any hope for it then please say so :)
Title: "spaaace?"
AI: 1
Author: ATMunn
It did indeed not go through. Also, I received this message twice, at
the same time, one as a reply to the other. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On 10/16/2018 3:55 PM, D Margaux wrote:
I sent this to the business mailing list, but it’s not showing up on
the website archive... sending it again in case it didn’t go
th
Thank you for the feedback! Comments on comments below.
On 10/16/2018 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Some hopefully-helpful comments...
Spaceships are indestructible fixed assets. Ownership of Spaceships
is restricted to players.
If a Spaceship is Destroyed, its Sector switch
I sent this to the business mailing list, but it’s not showing up on the
website archive... sending it again in case it didn’t go through.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "D. Margaux"
Date: October 16, 2018 at 3:37:19 PM EDT
To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
Subject: Reinstated CFJ Decision re
Some hopefully-helpful comments...
> Spaceships are indestructible fixed assets. Ownership of Spaceships
> is restricted to players.
> If a Spaceship is Destroyed, its Sector switch CANNOT be flipped. At
> least 24 hours after a Spaceship's Destroyed switch becomes True,
>
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> A) How did you even find that?
> B) I find that argument throughly unpersuasive and recant it. Considering
> the interest of the game is a last resort, and it is most assuredly not in
> the best interest of the game for the success of an action to be j
If anyone wants me to wait for their input, please let me know, otherwise I
plan to reinstate this decision soonish.
-- Forwarded message -
From: D. Margaux
Date: Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ Decision re Left||Right
To: Agora Business
I self-move
Oh I see. If anything it’s the opposite—there’s a theory under which you
three might win, and not me and G.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:36 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I meant the way there are separate CFJs ruling on "Trigon, twg, D.
> Margaux, G., and L" and "Trigon, twg, and L". It feels like y
A) How did you even find that?
I was searching through the archive several weeks ago for something else,
and came across it. The concept of content neutrality stuck in my mind for
some reason so I remembered it.
I meant the way there are separate CFJs ruling on "Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G.,
and L" and "Trigon, twg, and L". It feels like you're going to pull out some
sort of technicality that means only you and G. won. :P (I do realise they are
semantically different too, I just found it amusing)
-twg
Ah, the CFJ 1460 judgement doesn't actually use the word "action" - that was
part of my paraphrasing, apologies for the confusion. I don't believe it's
germane whether or not the intent or the objection are in fact actions
performed by announcement. In fact, the first example given in the judgem
11 matches
Mail list logo
