On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
> I play Kill Bill specifying the decision to adopt proposal 6466. (coppro
> seemed to miss bullet (e).)
Murphy already did.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:58, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I audit myself.
>>
> Unless I'm missing something you just gave yourself 11 rests
Ok, I thought the hand limits were per deck.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:58, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I audit myself.
>
Unless I'm missing something you just gave yourself 11 rests
BobTHJ
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Vlad, Andre, G., BobTHJ, P1-P100 [pending CFJ 2306]
Pretty sure 2306 was judged a long time ago.
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Taral wrote:
>> I go on hold. I'll be back Tuesday.
>
> Taral: I treated this as not automatically taking you off hold on
> Tuesday; did you come off hold manually that I missed, or are you
> intentionally stil
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Elliott
Hird wrote:
> Hey Taral, your site http://havenworks.com/ could use a bit of
> a redesign I think.
> http://www.getfirefox.com/
> Make a user stylesheet.
Meh. User stylesheets are a pain. :P
What browser are you using?
--
Taral
"Please let me know if
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:20, Pavitra wrote:
>> I'm not sure if this would work, but I'm curious:
>>
>>
>> 1. Use the BJS (or be the Insulator) to illegally deal yourself a bunch
>> of DoJ cards. Several of them will naturally be Absolv-o-Matics due to
>> the Law of Large Numb
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
> CHAMPIONSHIP Wooble
> CONTEST Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr
These two win types should be merged; winning by CONTEST is the
unofficial name for winning the old version of a Champion's Contest.
-G.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:58, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I play Drop Your Weapon, naming coppro and Discard Picking.
>
Thank you.
BobTHJ
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:53, Pavitra wrote:
>> BJS self-deals (in the past and again in the future once I fix them to
>> function correctly) are each made with a disclaimer indicating that
>> the deal is only valid if you are in fact owed the card.
>
> The Insulator could still do it.
>
I could,
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:56, comex wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 4, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>
>> BJS self-deals (in the past and again in the future once I fix them to
>> function correctly) are each made with a disclaimer indicating that
>> the deal is only valid if
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 4, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
BJS self-deals (in the past and again in the future once I fix them to
function correctly) are each made with a disclaimer indicating that
the deal is only valid if you are in fact owed the card.
Such uncertain actions are p
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:37, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Vlad, Andre, G., BobTHJ, P1-P100 [pending CFJ 2306]
>
> CFJ2306 was judged over 8 months ago. Are we still expecting an appeal?
>
Fixed in draft.
BobTHJ
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:20, Pavitra wrote:
> I'm not sure if this would work, but I'm curious:
>
>
> 1. Use the BJS (or be the Insulator) to illegally deal yourself a bunch
> of DoJ cards. Several of them will naturally be Absolv-o-Matics due to
> the Law of Large Numbers.
>
> 2. Publish an NoV
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:13, Pavitra wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 17:13, Pavitra wrote:
>>> Roger Hicks wrote:
My deal (first listed above) to Pavitra was illegal (I had already
dealt em a card). I respectfully request e destroys an Absolv-o-Matic
in eir po
I'm not sure if this would work, but I'm curious:
1. Use the BJS (or be the Insulator) to illegally deal yourself a bunch
of DoJ cards. Several of them will naturally be Absolv-o-Matics due to
the Law of Large Numbers.
2. Publish an NoV against yourself for the illegal draws. Close it, and
buy o
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 17:13, Pavitra wrote:
>> Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> My deal (first listed above) to Pavitra was illegal (I had already
>>> dealt em a card). I respectfully request e destroys an Absolv-o-Matic
>>> in eir possession to remedy this error.
>>>
>>> BobTHJ
>>
>> I
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Vlad, Andre, G., BobTHJ, P1-P100 [pending CFJ 2306]
CFJ2306 was judged over 8 months ago. Are we still expecting an appeal?
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> No; I didn't have the consent of all of the parties (Rainer never
>> responded to me), and my attempt to do it without objection was
>> impossible due to dependent actions breaking.
>>
>
> I don't know that it was required. Only you and ais523
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 17:13, Pavitra wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
>> My deal (first listed above) to Pavitra was illegal (I had already
>> dealt em a card). I respectfully request e destroys an Absolv-o-Matic
>> in eir possession to remedy this error.
>>
>> BobTHJ
>
> I do so.
>
> I deposit my othe
At approx 23:00 UTC today I will be departing for the US holiday
weekend to spend some time with the family. I expect to return
sometime on Monday. I will be away from the internet all weekend and
thus will be unable to update nomic.bob-space.com during that time.
Upon my return I will get to work
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Cookie Jar Report
>
> Date of this report: Tue 1 Sep 09
> Date of last report: Thu 27 Aug 09
> (All times are UTC)
>
>
> Deadline for guesses is the end of Friday each week.
I guess 16 proposals, 5 CFJs
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 06:42, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Pavitra wrote:
>> There was an attempt to amend the contract to refer to the normish
>> version (as allowed by contract). Did that ever go through?
>
> No; I didn't have the consent of all of the parties (Rainer
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 06:42, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Pavitra wrote:
>> There was an attempt to amend the contract to refer to the normish
>> version (as allowed by contract). Did that ever go through?
>
> No; I didn't have the consent of all of the parties (Rainer
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Taral wrote:
> I go on hold. I'll be back Tuesday.
Taral: I treated this as not automatically taking you off hold on
Tuesday; did you come off hold manually that I missed, or are you
intentionally still on hold?
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> There was an attempt to amend the contract to refer to the normish
> version (as allowed by contract). Did that ever go through?
No; I didn't have the consent of all of the parties (Rainer never
responded to me), and my attempt to do it without obj
2009/9/3 Roger Hicks :
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:35, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> Being a first-class player is something commendable and deserving of a
>> reward. I deal the following cards from the Deck of Government as part
>> of all first-class players' monthly salaries:
>>
> You didn't deal
2009/9/4 Jonatan Kilhamn :
> 2009/9/3 Roger Hicks :
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:35, Jonatan Kilhamn
>> wrote:
>>> Being a first-class player is something commendable and deserving of a
>>> reward. I deal the following cards from the Deck of Government as part
>>> of all first-class players' month
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/9/3 Roger Hicks :
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:35, Jonatan Kilhamn
>> wrote:
>>> Being a first-class player is something commendable and deserving of a
>>> reward. I deal the following cards from the Deck of Government as part
>>> of all first-class players' monthly s
29 matches
Mail list logo
