I cast an extra vote for 343.
It looks like I was too early with my last attempts to vote, so I again attempt
to vote:
363 FOR
364 FOR
H. Speaker Fool, I also would like to point out that I believe I gained 40
points from each of 358, 359, 360. (These presumably weren't on the lists that
Goethe sent you because I wasn't a
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Alexander Smith wrote:
It looks like I was too early with my last attempts to vote, so I again
attempt to vote:
363 FOR
364 FOR
H. Speaker Fool, I also would like to point out that I believe I
gained 40 points from each of 358, 359, 360. (These presumably weren't
My block of proposals earned 260 points for me. Half of that is 130.
There was only one entrant to the scavenger hunt, Steve.
Steve performed with a high degree of research skill. E found
sources for all 10 answers. E didn't get a perfect score (i.e. e
didn't list every awardee in every
On 28/06/2013 9:58 AM, Alexander Smith wrote:
It looks like I was too early with my last attempts to vote, so I again attempt
to vote:
363 FOR
364 FOR
It was not too early, voting started when I distributed, not when I
posted the report. And, you voted against before.
H. Speaker Fool, I
On 28/06/2013 1:07 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I call for judgement on the following: what is above described as
proposal 364 is actually a proposal.
Argument: I find the notion of this proposal to be extremely
humiliating. It unfairly awards the game to old-timers, despite the
hard work of the
Gratuitous arguments:
1. By this logic, I could claim that any event in the game - for example,
this CFJ being judged FALSE, or my own failure to win the game -
constitutes a penalty worse than losing and so cannot be imposed.
2. Even accepting that the loss of the game is a humiliation worse
7 matches
Mail list logo
