Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 12:22 -0600, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > I've thought about changing this before. When you win and you're already
>> > on the list, what's the most balanced:
>> >
>> I proto-vote for 2.
>
> That would mean that winning a lot would k
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 17:28 -0500, Sgeo wrote:
>> comex gains the Patent Title of Champion, for Winning by Junta. comex
>> gains the Patent Title of Minister without Portfolio. The title of
>> Minister without Portfolio is administratively revo
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 12:22 -0600, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I've thought about changing this before. When you win and you're already
> > on the list, what's the most balanced:
> >
> > 1. Current;
> > 2. Setting award date to new win date (back to bottom on list).
> > 3.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I've thought about changing this before. When you win and you're already
> on the list, what's the most balanced:
>
> 1. Current;
> 2. Setting award date to new win date (back to bottom on list).
> 3. Adding name a second time;
> a. Allowed to hold two prerogatives;
>
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> To put it another way, when there's debate about the natural-language
> meaning of "proposal" (or "document" in the definition of "proposal"),
> rule 754(4) is what determines what the word means. It takes the
> natural-language definition, except that lowe
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 17:28 -0500, Sgeo wrote:
>> comex gains the Patent Title of Champion, for Winning by Junta. comex
>> gains the Patent Title of Minister without Portfolio. The title of
>> Minister without Portfolio is administratively revoked from ais5
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On another note, it's rather confusing to have some sorts of wins which
> need Win Announcements, and some sorts of wins which don't. Maybe we
> should orthogonalize it?
Well I was confused, so probably. -G.
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:07 -0600, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> > Pavitra wrote:
>> >> I CFJ on the statement: "Warrigal CAN deregister."
>>
> I think the CFJ is a pretty clear TRUE, because I think Warrigal didn't
> cause emself to fail to be a player when e attempted to deregist
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 18:55 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Seems to be a part of Zefram's mass generalizations. Although even
> > with the distinction, when something ceases to be a rule, it pretty
> > much no longer exists in legal Agoran terms (at
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:07 -0600, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Alexander Smith wrote:
> > Pavitra wrote:
> >> In fact, I think I can get a Win by Paradox out of this. I CFJ on the
> >> statement: "Warrigal CAN deregister." I believe that eir citizenship
> >> cannot be determined, and so (since players
Alexander Smith wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>> In fact, I think I can get a Win by Paradox out of this. I CFJ on the
>> statement: "Warrigal CAN deregister." I believe that eir citizenship
>> cannot be determined, and so (since players unambiguously CAN
>> deregister, while non-players clearly CANNOT)
Pavitra wrote:
> In fact, I think I can get a Win by Paradox out of this. I CFJ on the
> statement: "Warrigal CAN deregister." I believe that eir citizenship
> cannot be determined, and so (since players unambiguously CAN
> deregister, while non-players clearly CANNOT) it is not possible to
> deter
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 17:28 -0500, Sgeo wrote:
> comex gains the Patent Title of Champion, for Winning by Junta. comex
> gains the Patent Title of Minister without Portfolio. The title of
> Minister without Portfolio is administratively revoked from ais523 and
> e loses eir Speakership. Pavitra is
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 10:30 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> > I win by Junta.
>
> You'll probably kill me for this, but even if it worked, you'll
> probably have to CFJ on whether this was a win announcement.
It wasn't a win announcement, but Junta doesn't need on
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 08:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Hmm... there are probably far more than two interpretations of what's
> > going on, just as in the previous one-hit wonders scam. I think it may
> > be a good step to identify what exactly they are.
>
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:02 PM, comex wrote:
> As the existence of the contestmaster attribute does not depend on the
> contract, dependent actions whose effects would include changing a
> contest's contestmaster are not possible.
Contestmaster is a contract switch. Of course its existence depe
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> Gratuitous arguments: rule 2136 authorizes this to happen whether or
> not 1728 does.
It allows the contestmaster to be changed when the mechanism (of a
dependent action) succeeds; however, R1728 does not allow it to
succeed.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> I cease to play by invoking Rule 101(vii). I register.
>
> I CFJ on the statement "I am a player". Dubious arguments: I
> deregistered, but not by announcement; therefore, the 30-day time
> limit does not apply. I CFJ on the statement "I am a par
18 matches
Mail list logo
