On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> I would probably most prefer the first of these, except with
> "restriction" for "restrictions".
That's pretty much what I had in mind too.
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 14:05 -0800, Taral wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players, subject
>> > to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be tran
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 14:36 -0800, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > The intention is that you can't transfer more than 5 points to. You also
> > can't transfer more than 5 points from. So you can't have a group of
> > players each giving 5 points to someone who
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 14:05 -0800, Taral wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players, subject
>>> to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be transferred this
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> The intention is that you can't transfer more than 5 points to. You also
> can't transfer more than 5 points from. So you can't have a group of
> players each giving 5 points to someone who they want to win; and you
> can't have a player giving
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 14:25 -0800, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I think I do want "nor", here.
>
> Eeew. How about "to/from"?
>
Because that would mean something else, I think.
The intention is that you can't transfer more than 5 points to. You also
can'
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I think I do want "nor", here.
Eeew. How about "to/from"?
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 14:05 -0800, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players, subject
> > to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be transferred this
> > way to any one player, nor from any one
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 22:05 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2009, at 22:01, Craig Daniel wrote:
>
> > I don't care where it passes, it'll be meaningless outside of
> > BlogNomic (which defines weekly actions).
>
> In Agora, game custom can gloss that over.
>
> In B, ahahahahahahahahaahaha
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players, subject
> to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be transferred this
> way to any one player, nor from any one player, per week.
I think you want "or", not "nor".
--
Goethe wrote:
> This scam was used before; when Rests were called blots, a past scam
> blotted most of the players into deregistration-land (before my time;
> maybe one of the involved players could describe it---Michael?)
Chuck did it, not into deregistration-land but close enough that they
agre
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Ah, clever. Most partnerships aren't sufficiently unilateral to be able
> to manage that, and arguably the ones that do are sufficient to land
> people in enough trouble as it is. (For instance, you could get the
> partnership to agree to a con
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 08:52 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Even if there's no scam per se, do you think that a deregistering
> player can't "take members with em" in a fit of pique? For a scam, I
> think it could happen quite easily that enough players in end up in
> partnerships that a well-connect
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Ah. If you mean to merge the criminal and equity courts, you should just
>> come out and say that a "judge of an equity court can create rests" and
>> rather than using this backhanded method.
>
>
On 21 Jan 2009, at 13:57, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Ah. If you mean to merge the criminal and equity courts, you
should just
come out and say that a "judge of an equity court can create rests"
and
rather than using this backhanded method. The scam is fairly real
(not
that "eir" thing) though no
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ah. If you mean to merge the criminal and equity courts, you should just
> come out and say that a "judge of an equity court can create rests" and
> rather than using this backhanded method.
But with this method, contracts can be self-policin
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 14:08 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, comex wrote:
>>> It's not a scam (ttPF!). Nor do I think ais523's pronoun argument is
>>> very convincing-- the referent is clear. I suppose it'll fail now--
>>> good for me now
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 14:08 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, comex wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 6059 D 1 2.0 comex "Voluntary" creation of rests
> >>> FOR
> >>
> >> I've found the scam here I believe; I'm not going to describe
18 matches
Mail list logo
