forwarded to FRC as a theme suggestion. As I said, they're between rounds.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 4:24 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 14:09 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > But more to the point maybe this theme would end up as
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 14:09 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > But more to the point maybe this theme would end up as graybeard-only
> > which wasn't my intent (but that was great addition to the previous
> > memoirs Dave!) - I was thinking entries would be
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 14:09 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> But more to the point maybe this theme would end up as graybeard-only
> which wasn't my intent (but that was great addition to the previous
> memoirs Dave!) - I was thinking entries would be as much about judicial
> procedure as the actual
Wel maybe.
But more to the point maybe this theme would end up as graybeard-only
which wasn't my intent (but that was great addition to the previous
memoirs Dave!) - I was thinking entries would be as much about judicial
procedure as the actual arguments, e.g. "your honor, the next
what, you're going to argue against "Dave believes there is a consensus" ?
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 3:19 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'm *vey* tempted to write the counter-arguments for this but
> that's the whole point of the tournament ;)
>
--
"At this point, given the limited available
I'm *vey* tempted to write the counter-arguments for this but
that's the whole point of the tournament ;)
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, David Nicol wrote:
> Well, having been there when it happened, after giving all you kids a
> moment to appreciate the grey in my beard, here's what happened:
>
>
Well, having been there when it happened, after giving all you kids a
moment to appreciate the grey in my beard, here's what happened:
(1) FRC began as a discussion within NW towards creating a bounded,
"playable" rule set, and has had a continuous monotonically increasing
round number since
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, David Nicol wrote:
> FRC is, you know, currently between rounds.
>
> Regarding the theme of
> "OYEZ, OYEZ! THE DISPUTE BEFORE US TODAY IS WHETHER FRC OR AGORA IS THE
> TRUE INHERITOR OF NOMIC WORLD".
>
> I think there's a "matter of genuine controversy" issue. What
Excuse me if I'm wrong because Agora is older than I am, but to me it seems
that the whole "Agora vs. FRC" debate is more of an in-joke between the two
groups than an actual serious debate. Saying that one is more worthy than
another is an impossible task since both of them are different in
FRC is, you know, currently between rounds.
Regarding the theme of
"OYEZ, OYEZ! THE DISPUTE BEFORE US TODAY IS WHETHER FRC OR AGORA IS THE
TRUE INHERITOR OF NOMIC WORLD".
I think there's a "matter of genuine controversy" issue. What difference
does this bragging right make? And why can't it be
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I'd tend to give yourself a bit more discussion to render things invalid,
> such as if they're off theme or too hard but not impossible.
My main edits are to slow down the pace a bit and allow for discussion
and a little more flexibility in exactly
I'd tend to give yourself a bit more discussion to render things invalid,
such as if they're off theme or too hard but not impossible. Also, keep in
mind that you're not going to be able to do this until the new contracts
pass. Oh, and I'd appreciate a pledge not to maliciously amend or
It's not really my kind of thing but I'll certainly join in if it happens. I
can't see any loopholes.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On June 29, 2018 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> So there were no comments on this is there interest? I have a few
>
> minor edits but
I'll join it if you decide to go through with it.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 11:16 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> So there were no comments on this is there interest? I have a few
> minor edits but otherwise it can be started - but depends on whether
> people want to play it.
>
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2018,
14 matches
Mail list logo
