On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> What's important here is that the time limit to perform an action (in
> this case, intention to perform a dependent action; although this is not
> normally considered a future event, the (including the time limit to
> perform an action) overrides this) is
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:48 -0500, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > 2. The regions of each colour must be connected. In
> other words,
> > for any two squares which are the same colour, there
> is a
>
I might have agreed to this. I might not. I will, for now, take actions
consistent with being bound by this contract just to make you think I am and
then when you expect me to play along I will vote against one of your
decisions or object to one of your actions and you will have no basis for a
case
On 28 Dec 2008, at 19:36, Ed Murphy wrote:
Why not? If pre-emptive objections work in general, then I don't see
why these particular pre-emptive objections wouldn't.
They don't in general.
ehird wrote:
> On 28 Dec 2008, at 17:02, comex wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Alex Smith
>> wrote:
>>> I object to all attempts to perform dependent actions Without 3
>>> Objections until the end of the current Holiday.
>> I object to all attempts to perform dependent actions un
OscarMeyr wrote:
> You're right. Cases SHALL NOT be assigned or judged during a
> holiday. That's overly strong.
You're right, the time limits for reacting to them (via judgement and
appeal, respectively) are extended due to the holiday anyway. (I hadn't
thought of this when publishing the N
On 28 Dec 2008, at 17:02, comex wrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Alex Smith
wrote:
I object to all attempts to perform dependent actions Without 3
Objections until the end of the current Holiday.
I object to all attempts to perform dependent actions until the end of
the current Hol
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 11:56 -0500, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> This contract has the same basis as W30 1 through W30 37. The W30
> contracts all fail, if I understand the contract rules correctly.
They aren't partnerships.
--
ais523
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 11:53 -0500, comex wrote:
> [Summary: More y-points for me, to a total of 640, then a win
> announcement.]
Just a quick explanation of why this works, but Goethe's attempt at the
same scam earlier didn't. It's all in the timing.
The Holidays rule says:
{{{
If some Rule
On Dec 28, 2008, at 11:52 AM, comex wrote:
[Summary: In five contracts, I award ais523 50 + 50i points. Then, in
several contracts, ais523 awards me a lot of y-points.]
I hereby publish the following contract's text and membership, making
it public:
{{{
This is a public contract.
comex CAN act
On Dec 26, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
My suggestion: holidays: The time between Dec 24 and Jan 2 Just
Does
Not Exist. Anything happening during that time is deemed to happen
on Jan 3 (though in the order it was sent over the holidays
11 matches
Mail list logo
