On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I submit the following proposal, Sudden Death. [please check mechanics?]
I like it, but perhaps change the name: Rule 2187 already defines "overtime".
> The next player who wins the game by Renaissance simultaneously
> wins the g
On 01/19/2010 04:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I submit the following proposal, Sudden Death. [please check mechanics?]
--
[A bonus temporary win condition that only two people should ever
be able to achieve. Start your engines!
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I would think that fact that this could refer to either a major arcana
>> card or an exploit card means the conditional doesn't work. Even if e
>> doesn't have both cards, we have to evaluate the co
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I would think that fact that this could refer to either a major arcana
> card or an exploit card means the conditional doesn't work. Even if e
> doesn't have both cards, we have to evaluate the conditional as if e
> possibly did (am I saying that clearly?
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
6615 1 2.0 G.* GreenThe only winning move
>>> AGAINST x my voting limit. If I have a card that allows me to veto this
>>> proposal, I veto it (by playing a card if necessary).
I would think that fact that this could refer to either
I (do not yet) agree to the following (proto-)contract:
1) Administrivia:
a) The name of this contract is Homenomic Security.
b) Any member CAN amend this contract without member objection.
2) If no defense drill is in progress, then any member CAN initiate
a defense drill by
c. wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:13 AM, ais523 wrote:
>> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 23:13 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>>> NUM II AI SUBMITTER CHAMBER TITLE
>> I vote and take other actions as follows:
>>> 6615 1 2.0 G.* GreenThe only winning move
>> AGAINST x
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 4:13 AM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 23:13 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> NUM II AI SUBMITTER CHAMBER TITLE
> I vote and take other actions as follows:
>> 6615 1 2.0 G.* Green The only winning move
> AGAINST x my voting limit.
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I'm more concerned about losing the winning condition before I get all my FRC
> points backlog awarded so that I can win.
Does this mean we have to keep every old and hoary win method until
everyone who could conceivably win by it gets eir pat on the back?
On 01/19/2010 02:06 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
6615 1 2.0 G.* GreenThe only winning move
AGAINST (at least one of Junta/Clout/Proposal should be kept)
I'm not too concerned about that given that with winning unsecured, a
proposal can just redefine the winning condition before
c. wrote:
>> 6613 3 3.0 copproRed De-cartes
> AGINST
As this lacks the history of AGAINT, I'm treating it as a
straightforward and thus non-ineffective typo for AGAINST.
On 01/19/2010 01:10 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
I revoke 20x to G.
Huh?
-coppro
G. wrote:
> I vote:
>> 6607 0 3.0 copproRed Festive Fix
> FOR
According to my records, you have 2 Rests, so your voting limit on
Red proposals is zero.
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>1/4 285:18 -0.6 -1y to G.
>>1/4 285 won by G. 20xto G.
> I revoke 1y from G.
> I revoke 20x to G.
^^
Er, I hope that's not pragmatic...
c. wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Whups, ignore that! Wrong proposal. So my other question: the CFJs didn't
>> explicitly CoE on prop 6583, which is required to stop self-ratification, so
>> did it self-ratify or was there a CoE? In case: CoE: the voting resul
G. wrote:
> Whups, ignore that! Wrong proposal. So my other question: the CFJs didn't
> explicitly CoE on prop 6583, which is required to stop self-ratification, so
> did it self-ratify or was there a CoE? In case: CoE: the voting results
> for proposal 6583 were incorrect.
coppro CoEd on Dec
16 matches
Mail list logo
