On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
> Corrected NoV (forget the power of the rule in the first one): ais523
> violated the Power-1 rule 1742 by failing to act in accordance with the
> PerlNomic Partnership contract by attempting to modify it other than by
> the proposal mechanism
You a Penalty Box? Funny. I accidentally the whole WRV.
On Tuesday, September 15, 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>
> For each of the following players, I intend, without objection, to make
> em inactive (I know it's broken now but I hope the Assessor will pass
> the proposal to repair
2009/9/15 Jonatan Kilhamn :
> 2009/9/15 Kerim Aydin :
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>>> For each public contract that I am a party to, I leave it.
>>
>> The standards on communicating conditional actions are getting
>> ridiculous. I'm tempted to post "I perform all the actions
2009/9/15 comex (in IBA report):
> -- Cards (Government)
> Roll Call 20 15
> Debate-o-Matic 20 5
> Arm-twist 45 14
> On the Nod 45 3
> Kill Bill 110 7
> Lobbyist 110
> Local Election 110
> No Confidence 55
The following mechanic was really useful at setting gameplay balance
rates; e.g. rates of currency distribution, card frequencies, points
per week for contests, etc. The best bit was that it became a
substantial campaign issue for offices but not an "unfair" one (e.g.
the Poobah benefits are raw
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Charles Walker wrote:
> Get rid of free monthly salaries.
Free monthly salaries were in response to complaints, including from
you IIRC, that the casual non-officer player never got to do much;
e.g. didn't get notes so couldn't increase caste. That's not to say
the salaries
It strikes me that Rests aren't much of a punishment atm: you can burn
them off easily enough with Absolv-o-matics, which you are likely to
get for free each month. This also goes against the whole concept of
rests; you are supposed to have to work to burn them off. In fact, it
strikes me that havi
2009/9/15 Kerim Aydin :
>
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> For each public contract that I am a party to, I leave it.
>
> The standards on communicating conditional actions are getting
> ridiculous. I'm tempted to post "I perform all the actions I CAN,
> in the order that maximizes
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> For each public contract that I am a party to, I leave it.
The standards on communicating conditional actions are getting
ridiculous. I'm tempted to post "I perform all the actions I CAN,
in the order that maximizes the number of things I can do".
(
2009/9/15 Sean Hunt :
> Sean Hunt wrote:
> (...)
> I a Penalty Box and a WRV to ais523.
>
I don't think this is effective, but fortunately the contract allows
you to complete the win anyway. Congratulations!
--
-Tiger
2009/9/15 Sean Hunt :
> Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>>
>> 2009/9/15 Sean Hunt :
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Having received no objections, I make all the quoted players inactive.
/me is a lonely cow :(
--
-c.
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
2009/9/15 Sean Hunt :
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.
Why?
Because I have 45 zm, I have
2009/9/15 Sean Hunt :
> 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.
>
Why?
--
-Tiger
I also forgot to take CFJ 2680's favoring into account. This one was
clearly not illegal, though (I couldn't assign a favoring judge because
both were sitting, and Rule 1868 doesn't enforce favoring so strongly
as to restrict the order in which cases are assigned).
As one of the favoring parties
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 00:28 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> (2678 and 2679 are above ə's rank. Rotation and further assignments
> coming up shortly, followed by resolution of proposals.)
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2680
>
> == CFJ 2680 ==
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote:
> Actually, based on the recent outage, I was looking at the precedent
> (CFJ 2058) again, and as far as I can tell the judge's verdict
> contradicts eir arguments. Therefore, another precedent on the matter
> would likely be very welcome.
Revisits aren't a bad
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote:
> Actually, based on the recent outage, I was looking at the precedent
> (CFJ 2058) again, and as far as I can tell the judge's verdict
> contradicts eir arguments. Therefore, another precedent on the matter
> would likely be very welcome.
Revisits aren't a bad
18 matches
Mail list logo
