Wooble wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I mill 7-1 to obtain 6. I transfer a 5 crop, a 6 crop, and an 8 crop to
>> ais523, specifying that e increase the PNP's caste twice.
>
> Great, now we'll have to get around to making it so the PNP can
> actuall
Ivan Hope wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ivan Hope wrote:
>>
5682 D 0 2.0 ais523 Eligible Monsters
>>> FORx1622
>>>
5683 D 1 2.0 Wooble Fix Elections
>>> FORx1622
>>>
5684 D 0 2.0 Wooble Correc
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mill 7-1 to obtain 6. I transfer a 5 crop, a 6 crop, and an 8 crop to
> ais523, specifying that e increase the PNP's caste twice.
Great, now we'll have to get around to making it so the PNP can
actually vote again.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Hope wrote:
>
>>> 5682 D 0 2.0 ais523 Eligible Monsters
>> FORx1622
>>
>>> 5683 D 1 2.0 Wooble Fix Elections
>> FORx1622
>>
>>> 5684 D 0 2.0 Wooble Correct Ribbons
>> FORx1622
>>
>>>
Ivan Hope wrote:
>> 5682 D 0 2.0 ais523 Eligible Monsters
> FORx1622
>
>> 5683 D 1 2.0 Wooble Fix Elections
> FORx1622
>
>> 5684 D 0 2.0 Wooble Correct Ribbons
> FORx1622
>
>> 5685 O 0 1.7 ais523 Active Monsters
> FORx1622
Your current voting
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:45 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 15:44 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> For the months of June and July I award the following points to the
>> following Contestmasters:
>>
>> Murphy - 18 points
>> ais523 - 20 points
>> BobTHJ - 26 points
>>
>> S
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 15:44 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> For the months of June and July I award the following points to the
> following Contestmasters:
>
> Murphy - 18 points
> ais523 - 20 points
> BobTHJ - 26 points
>
> Scorekeepor BobTHJ
Was this doubled due to Overtime?
--
ais523
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Did that get removed? The last version of the ruleset I've seen
>> (http://www.geoffreyspear.com/slr.txt) still has it.
>
> Hm. I guess you're right because P5669 was ineffective due to the text
> replaced not matching t
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:39 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The judgement of FINE on the question on sentencing is still in
>> effect, as I never appealed it. Since it has not been appealed since
>> then, and it
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:39 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The judgement of FINE on the question on sentencing is still in
> effect, as I never appealed it. Since it has not been appealed since
> then, and it has certainly been more than two weeks since it was first
> assigned, it now can
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on the result of the appeal, I don't think there's any good
> reason to assign a judgment other than GUILTY on culpability. Now, as
> for sentencing, the appeals result suggested that FINE was not harsh
> enough. A se
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And Ivan Hope's voting
> limit is currently 1 and likely to remain so for a while, making
> CHOKEY not very interesting.
I don't believe interestingness is part of the criteria for sentence
appropriateness. I don't think
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did that get removed? The last version of the ruleset I've seen
> (http://www.geoffreyspear.com/slr.txt) still has it.
That page is now out of date, but I don't remember a proposal changing
REASSIGN since it was updated.
13 matches
Mail list logo
