agora-requ...@listserver.tue.nl wrote:
> * Shrink Potion
> A player CAN play a Shrink Potion, specifying a player. That
> player's Hand Limit is decreased by 10% (rounded up).
This rounds up the shrinkage; that is, the Hand Limit is decreased to
90% of its previous state, rounded
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 00:04 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> > I call for judgement on the statement "I favoured a CFJ by Murphy with
> > the statement 'It is legal to announce that CFJ 2670 was appealed.'". I
> > favour the CFJ that's the subject of that CFJ (to remove ambiguity).
> >
> >
ais523 wrote:
> I call for judgement on the statement "I favoured a CFJ by Murphy with
> the statement 'It is legal to announce that CFJ 2670 was appealed.'". I
> favour the CFJ that's the subject of that CFJ (to remove ambiguity).
>
> Arguments:
> If a public forum is permanently down, is it poss
Sean Hunt wrote:
> ONGOING ELECTIONS
> =
>
> Quorum: 6
>
> IADoP
> Initiated: 2009-09-13 01:58
> Candidates: coppro
> Unaccepted Nominations:
> Nominations Declined by:
>
> Insulator
> Initiated: 2009-09-13 01:58
> Candidates: BobTHJ
> Unaccepted Nominations:
>
Sean Hunt wrote:
I withdraw 2 * No Confidence for 110zm.
I play No Confidence, specifying the IADoP.
Since it's gone longest without an election, I initiate an election for
Insulator.
-coppro
All of these fail.
-coppro
c. wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 2) Cards affecting voting limits on individual proposals (because
>> the Assessor DB has no inherent provisions for dealing with that;
>> I should revise it to take a snapshot of quorum and voting limits
>> when distri
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Charles Walker wrote:
> I've just realised that dependant actions are still broken. Thanks for
> the withdrawal anyway.
You know, I haven't followed all the ins and outs of the arguments, but
I really don't thing dependent actions have to be judged broken.
Consider:
Origina
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 2) Cards affecting voting limits on individual proposals (because
> the Assessor DB has no inherent provisions for dealing with that;
> I should revise it to take a snapshot of quorum and voting limits
> when distribution is recorde
BobTHJ wrote:
>> 6476 O 1 1.0 Yally No More Paradox
> PRESENT
Your voting limit on ordinary proposals is 0 due to rests.
ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 13:03 -0400, comex wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> Note that I intentionally withheld an opinion, because my opinion
>>> would be to AFFIRM with an error rating. I'm still of the opinion that
>>> the conditions can not be AN
BobTHJ wrote:
>> 6476 O 1 1.0 Yally No More Paradox
> PRESENT
Your voting limit on ordinary proposals is 0 due to rests.
Pavitra wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Proto-Proposal: Demolish the House
>> (AI = 2, please)
>>
>> [Replaces cards, effectively a few dozen single-use currencies, with a
>> few multiple-use currencies.]
>
> I'm not ready to get rid of Cards yet. I want to explore some more of
> the places the con
coppro wrote:
> (note to the Assessor: I am fully aware my voting limit is not 12)
According to my records, your voting limit on ordinary proposals is 5.
G. wrote:
> You know, I haven't followed all the ins and outs of the arguments, but
> I really don't thing dependent actions have to be judged broken.
>
> Consider:
>
> Originally, the rule relied on a single list-based linguistic convention
> to decide whether the A, B, and C were logically 'A
14 matches
Mail list logo
