On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 14:30 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> Well, w/o 2 objections is harder than both w/o 3 objections and Agoran
> Consent, IMO. (Agoran Consent can pass despite lots of objections,
> sometimes.) And i
On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 14:30 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > A contest's contestmaster CAN create a Medal in that contest's
> > possession without 2 objections. While a contest owns a Medal, it is
> > known as a Champion's Contest.
>
> We did this before for a
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> A contest's contestmaster CAN create a Medal in that contest's
> possession without 2 objections. While a contest owns a Medal, it is
> known as a Champion's Contest.
We did this before for a while and it was fun; however if it takes w/o 3
objections jus
This one's pretty simple; it allows players to grant contests the
ability to award one win, without 2 objections. If this passes, I have
plans brewing to make Enigma into a Champion's Contest; I'd make the
changes to the contract first so everyone knew what the plan was and
could object to it. (Sor
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Warrigal wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
>> The phrase "deregister rather than continue to play" only makes sense
>> if "deregister" stops you from playing; deregistration as a process
>> is defined elsewhere,
On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 11:13 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> If this wasn't done platonically, I hereby deregister the Protection
> Racket and the Reformed Bank of Agora, as neither is a person and
> neither has ever been a first-class person.
It wasn't, but I beat you to it.
--
ais523
On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 10:27 -0500, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> When did that happen? The last I saw (in January), e attempted to
> deregister to a-d.
Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:12:15 -0500, in the message with subject "A scam."
E was trying to deregister in such a way that e could immediately
reregist
On Feb 18, 2009, at 7:32 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Benjamin Schultz
wrote:
SAVAGE (Voting Limit: 0)
(All others not yet listed, as well as:)
Warrigal
Are you sure?
--Warrigal
Partially. I've been flooded with emails each time I log in, so I
may have
Murphy wrote:
> I forgot to include Pavitra's conditional vote:
>
> > FOR if the text of this proposal is the same as the text of my proposal
> > "Fast rehabilitation"; AGAINST otherwise.
>
> which I think evaluates to FOR. Either way, it doesn't affect the
> overall result (though it does a
9 matches
Mail list logo
