On Jan 8, 2008 12:14 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There have been multiple Michaels in the past, and multiple Ians (that's
> why Ian Kelly chose 'root' IIRC).
In fact, there were already players using both the names Ian and Kelly
when I first registered.
-root
On Jan 9, 2008 8:28 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you post the difference between this and current?
Briefly, it allows more contestants per task to score points by
meeting optional objectives, clarifies that only one entry per
contestant is ultimately considered in the scoring, and al
On Jan 9, 2008 8:32 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/9/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As an argument for my appeal I suggest that due to not carefully
> > reading the rules, I was blissfully unaware that my sarcastic
> > registration of Futuremyartug was in violation of R
On 1/9/08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As an argument for my appeal I suggest that due to not carefully
> reading the rules, I was blissfully unaware that my sarcastic
> registration of Futuremyartug was in violation of R2149.
* UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably b
On 1/9/08, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to make the scoring a bit more interesting in future
> challenges. I intend, without two objections, to amend the Brainfuck
> Golf contract to read as follows:
Can you post the difference between this and current?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTE
On Dec 25, 2007, at 9:54 AM, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007, at 3:57 PM, Zefram wrote:
I hereby assign the judicial panel of Iammars, OscarMeyr, and root as
judge of CFJ 1831b.
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1831b
With the agreement of my fellow H. Appeal
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Should the appeals panel not overturn this judgment this message shall
> serve as my apology.
I would argue that, while clever, this statement is not "explaining eir
error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement" and thus
is not an apolog
On 1/8/08, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to appeal CFJ 1856. It is unreasonable to legislate from the bench.
Unreasonable, but allowed by the Rules. :D Judgement, Lindrum-style.
--
Eris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you
> 5402 D1 2pikhq
AGAINST (The condition does not apply to any existing partnerships;
Agora's Child, Big Brother, Human Point Two, the P2P Partnership, and
WALRUS were deregistered due to being non-public, not due to being a
non-person; and Fookiemyartug was not a player to begin with)
On Jan 9, 2008 10:51 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 5393 D1 2Murphy Foreign trade
> AGAINST
I forgot to explain this vote. I'm voting AGAINST this primarily
because it would expose Agora to currency scams originating in other
nomics, but also partially because I wouldn't
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> 5400 O0 1woggle Public Partnerships III
> AGAINST * 4
This is removing a bit that was added to Rule 2144 by PP-I, and then
strengthened in effect at a higher power (Rule 2145) by PP-II, so the
lower-power bit is redundant in effect (though
11 matches
Mail list logo
