Maud wrote:
There are other places where switches would be useful...
No objection to rewording lots of stuff with switches, especially
if it's wording changes and not new concepts. Only new concept
I'm worried about is activity.
I wouldn't propose that going on hold makes you lose all your
GreyKnight wrote:
If we rule that:
(a) All players that were active when 4866 was adopted are
considered
active for the purpose of any rule which refers to activity.
(b) All players that were inactive when 4866 was adopted are
considered inactive for any such rule until they next participate
On 10/8/06, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 02:42:22AM -0700, Grey Knight wrote:
> Rule 698/14 (Power=1) says "A player who is inactive or unready is
> ineligible to judge CFJs", so this would additionally mean that CFJ
> 1590 is FALSE.
I *think* you may need to
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 04:35:39PM -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I don't mind adding switches, but this is badly out of date:
I am working from the most recently published ruleset, which
incorporates proposals up to 4866. I am aware that there are proposals
the effects of which have not been includ
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 02:42:22AM -0700, Grey Knight wrote:
> Rule 698/14 (Power=1) says "A player who is inactive or unready is
> ineligible to judge CFJs", so this would additionally mean that CFJ
> 1590 is FALSE.
I *think* you may need to publish your decision (that is, post it to a
public for
I don't mind adding switches, but this is badly out of date:
R1840 no longer exists, and there is no longer any such
thing as rebellion.
R1933 likewise, and chamber now a feature of AI.
R1940 likewise (no boons anymore).
R1952 likewise (no concept of distributability)
In fact, the only places t
On Oct 8, 2006, at 6:31 PM, Michael Slone wrote:Amend rule 1840 (Political Status; Power=2) by replacing the textreading: Orthodoxy is a stuck player switch with values abiding and rebellious. A player may flip eir orthodoxy, unless e has done so during the current month.with te
--- Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/8/06, Grey Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Rule 698/14 (Power=1) says "A player who is inactive or unready is
> > ineligible to judge CFJs", so this would additionally mean that CFJ
> > 1590 is FALSE.
> >
> > (That rule quote is taken from the
On 10/8/06, Grey Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rule 698/14 (Power=1) says "A player who is inactive or unready is
ineligible to judge CFJs", so this would additionally mean that CFJ
1590 is FALSE.
(That rule quote is taken from the September SLR, but I can't see
anywhere where that rule has
--- Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1589
> CFJ 1589
> Quazie is inactive.
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> Proposal 4866 repealed Rule 1016 (Activity Levels) without declaring
> all players active.
>
> Quazie was inactive as of the Reg
10 matches
Mail list logo
