G. wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I submit the following AI-1 proposal "Out with the Dictator 1":
>> {{
>> Repeal Rule 2324.
>>
>> [This is ineffective if the purported escalations worked.]
>> }}
>>
>> I submit the following AI-3 proposal "Out with the Dictator 3":
>> {{
>>
omd wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>> I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
>
> There's a good argument that all announcement actions are fee-based
> (zero is non-negative), so this might be valid even if you didn't have
> enough ergs to use the norma
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 14:32, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Yally wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 14:23, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Yally wrote:
>>>
I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
>>>
>>> NoV: Yally violated the Power=1 Rule 2215 (Truthiness) by claiming
>>> that eir attempted erg destr
Crap... I thought the 4th Amendment had predecence... =S
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Sean Hunt
>> wrote:
>> > I sell my soul to the Lord Demon of UNDEAD
>>
>> CoE: You don't have sufficient ergs to
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> CFJ, II 1: A player with exactly 2 ergs remaining CAN destroy 1 erg in
> eir own possession via a fee-based action.
> CFJ, II 1: It is legal for a player with exactly 2 ergs remaining to
> attempt to destroy 1 erg in eir own possession via a fee
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I opine REMAND without prejudice on CFJ 2929a. Given the arguments on
> the CFJ, the judge should ideally go into more detail as to what their
> affect is, or if they're irrelevant (and if so, why).
The arguments all seemed fairly blandly worde
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
There's a good argument that all announcement actions are fee-based
(zero is non-negative), so this might be valid even if you didn't have
enough ergs to use the normal fee-based destruction.
Yally wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 14:23, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Yally wrote:
>>
>>> I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
>>
>> NoV: Yally violated the Power=1 Rule 2215 (Truthiness) by claiming
>> that eir attempted erg destruction was a fee-based action.
>>
>> Intended NoV, with 1 s
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 13:53, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
>
By which I of course meant rests... *facepalm*
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
> > I sell my soul to the Lord Demon of UNDEAD
>
> CoE: You don't have sufficient ergs to do that.
This also ignores (but implicitly triggers) Clause 12.
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 09:53 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kerim Aydin
> > wrote:
> > > [Still 274 messages behind but might as well]
> > >
> > > I become active. I sit up.
> > >
> > > Iff the office of Fearmongor is Assumed,
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > [Still 274 messages behind but might as well]
> >
> > I become active. I sit up.
> >
> > Iff the office of Fearmongor is Assumed, I assume it.
> >
> > I make ehird Quiet (call that wishful thinking :P )
>
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> [Still 274 messages behind but might as well]
>
> I become active. I sit up.
>
> Iff the office of Fearmongor is Assumed, I assume it.
>
> I make ehird Quiet (call that wishful thinking :P )
>
> -G.
Do you realize you're a dictator?
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM, omd wrote:
> R2125 uses the phrase "as allowed by the rules". "Where permitted by
> other rules" might be slightly different when multiple rules are in
> conflict (not sure), but I doubt it differs in the level of required
> explicitness. So any permission that
14 matches
Mail list logo
