Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Hmmm... history I don't know about in this exact language... what was
>> the break between I and II? -G.
>
> IIRC, and this was before my time, there was a meta-agreement at one
> point to restore the game to functioning stat
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ultimately, what we're dealing with is, if a person does take an
>>> absolute dictatorship, and e makes too many changes, then players who
>>> are strongly
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, II=1, AI=1, "Library of Senate":
> {
> Amend Rule 1750 (Read the Ruleset Week) by appending the paragraph:
>
> This rule is an Agoran National Treasure. All players SHOULD
> protect it from being amended or
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Ultimately, what we're dealing with is, if a person does take an
absolute dictatorship, and e makes too many changes, then players who
are strongly pro-democratic may leave, and having a dictatorship
with no players is rat
2009/12/2 Pavitra :
> comex wrote:
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Arguments:
>>>
>>> If you think it's POSSIBLE, just try to.
>>>
>>> (In the context of R1698, is the regular democratic defense of R104
>>> the
>>> ultimate in nomic-ness or the ul
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ultimately, what we're dealing with is, if a person does take an
> absolute dictatorship, and e makes too many changes, then players who
> are strongly pro-democratic may leave, and having a dictatorship
> with no players is rather hollow.
The
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Arguments:
If you think it's POSSIBLE, just try to.
(In the context of R1698, is the regular democratic defense of R104
the
ultimate in nomic-ness or the ultimate in non-nomic-ness?)
If it's IMPOSSIBLE now, surely it wa
I think it's always been explained as an interpretation or
clarification (even when, like with the Black Repeals, the
interpretation used is very unusual)-- at least, an actual "clean
break" would have been documented somewhere. But I wasn't around so
what do I know?
Sent from my iPhone
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Hmmm... history I don't know about in this exact language... what was
> the break between I and II? -G.
IIRC, and this was before my time, there was a meta-agreement at one
point to restore the game to functioning state. That would
*technical
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Ultimately, what we're dealing with is, if a person does take an
>> absolute dictatorship, and e makes too many changes, then players who
>> are strongly pro-democratic may leave, and having a dictatorship
>
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> I call the following CFJ: It is POSSIBLE to make a rule change to Rule 104
>> in a four-week period.
>>
>> Arguments:
>>
>> If you think it's POSSIBLE, just try to.
>>
>> (In the context of R1698, is
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ultimately, what we're dealing with is, if a person does take an
> absolute dictatorship, and e makes too many changes, then players who
> are strongly pro-democratic may leave, and having a dictatorship
> with no players is rather hollow. So
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> I call the following CFJ: It is POSSIBLE to make a rule change to Rule 104
> in a four-week period.
>
> Arguments:
>
> If you think it's POSSIBLE, just try to.
>
> (In the context of R1698, is the regular democratic defense of R104 the
>
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:34 PM, comex wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> If anyone else wants to be Dealor, go ahead.
>>
>> A scam like you propose is a serious breach of trust; I for one would
>> not worry about keeping an offic
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> But you have to consider the fact that the scam involves absolutely
> destroying Agora. coppro would have to deregister every active player, and,
> if e wanted to, could very easily establish a dictatorship and completely
> make everything stop, interrup
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:34 PM, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> If anyone else wants to be Dealor, go ahead.
>
> A scam like you propose is a serious breach of trust; I for one would
> not worry about keeping an office but focus on not being exiled.
Forging ema
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >
> > If anyone else wants to be Dealor, go ahead.
>
> It's better to have a vacant office than an untrustworthy holder. In
> any case, you didn't do the scam, but merely pointing out the scam and
>
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 09:33 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>>
>>> If anyone else wants to be Dealor, go ahead.
>>
>> It's better to have a vacant office than an untrustworthy holder. In
>> any case, you didn't do the scam, bu
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 09:33 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >
> > If anyone else wants to be Dealor, go ahead.
>
> It's better to have a vacant office than an untrustworthy holder. In
> any case, you didn't do the scam, but merely pointing out the scam and
>
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
>
> If anyone else wants to be Dealor, go ahead.
It's better to have a vacant office than an untrustworthy holder. In
any case, you didn't do the scam, but merely pointing out the scam and
saying "look what I could have done, aren't I a good guy for not doin
20 matches
Mail list logo
