comex wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:04 PM, comex wrote:
>> Bribes are fun, but I didn't really want to scam an office I haven't
>> even been keeping up with the reports of.
>
> As Sgeo just mentioned in ##nomic, I incorrectly awarded Champion to
> inactive players, who since recently cannot
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:37 PM, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:04 PM, comex wrote:
>> Bribes are fun, but I didn't really want to scam an office I haven't
>> even been keeping up with the reports of.
>
> As Sgeo just mentioned in ##nomic, I incorrectly awarded Champion to
> inactive play
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Oh, after rereading Rule 2188, you're right; it's clearly meant to
>> apply to a specific (singular) proposal. It was my belief that due to
>> the wording, the first announcement awarded a win to everyone, and the
>> second two were ineffectiv
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Gratuitous arguments:
>> 1. G.'s win announcements would have awarded wins in the order
>> Red players, Purple players, Green players, unrelated to
>> comex's ordering.
>
> Oh, after rereading Rule
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Gratuitous arguments:
> 1. G.'s win announcements would have awarded wins in the order
> Red players, Purple players, Green players, unrelated to
> comex's ordering.
Oh, after rereading Rule 2188, you're right; it's clearly meant to
a
G. wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, comex wrote:
>> Alright, then, my last actions as Herald: Hear ye, hear ye. ALL
>> PLAYERS (all 19 of them) have won the game.
>>
>> I award Champion to each of the following players in the following
>> randomly selected order: Phoenix, G., Ienpw III, Warrigal, com
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, ais523 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 13:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>
>>> They all passed? Way to cheapen wins...
>>
>> I agree... I expected like at least one last minute vote ch
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, comex wrote:
> The identity of the Speaker is probably undefined now that
> simultaneous wins have occurred:
Heh, that's right, that's why it was previously pegged to the
champion-awarding which can't be simultaneous. Sorry I missed
that bug introduction when this change in
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, ais523 wrote:
> I'm increasingly coming to think that we should probably go back to a
> standard one-person-one-vote system for voting, at least for a while,
> and work on another area of the game; messing with voting has become so
> commonplace now that it just tends to bore p
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 16:40 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, ais523 wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 13:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> They all passed? Way to cheapen wins...
> >
> > I agree... I expected like at least on
Yally wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 19:38, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I register.
>>
>> I CFJ on: "Wooble is a Player."
>>
>> Evidence: although I purportedly deregistered earlier today, the
>> Registrar's report posted shortly before this purported registration
>> does not list me as a player.
>
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 13:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> They all passed? Way to cheapen wins...
I agree... I expected like at least one last minute vote change along with
that player switching chamber so at least one would fail. Oh well. -G.
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 13:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Nope. Matches the exact language of a R2188 Win by Proposal, so:
>
> Win Announcement: A proposal awarding a win to one or more persons has
> been been adopted (Proposal 6683), therefore by R2188, one or more persons
> has won the game.
>
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ID: 6683
> Title: Up Red
> Author: G.
> AI: 1.0
> II: 1
> Chamber: Red
>
> All active players whose Title is unambiguously Red at the time the
> voting period for the decision to adopt this proposal ends are hereby
> awarded a Win.
Fails, as thos
comex wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> To remove ambiguity, I vote FOR each Agoran Decision for which I have not
>> cast a vote.
>
> Me too.
For 6682-85, I already had votes recorded for both of you:
Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:17:39 -0600 (yoyo) coppro F A A A
Sun, 21
15 matches
Mail list logo
