On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I think given that at power-3.2 saying "that
> previous message was never sent" means that that previous message was
> never sent! Hard to get around any game custom at that power.
Well, that's not what the rule says. It doesn't establish an
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I don't think the ratification causes anyone to become anything new;
> > it ratifies that a past message wasn't sent and so that any states are
> > continuous in terms of gamestate.
>
> Well, this is the o
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>
> I can't be bothered to read that, but I deregister if I can.
>
> -scshunt
I'm curious as to why do you keep doing that.
~ Roujo
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I don't think the ratification causes anyone to become anything new;
> it ratifies that a past message wasn't sent and so that any states are
> continuous in terms of gamestate.
Well, this is the old issue of whether or not history is part of
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> Well, I'm not convinced your other message didn't work and deregister
> >> everyone. Your ratification thing leaves the game in a slightly
> >> different state if it did.
> >
> > Resolution of this one fi
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Well, I'm not convinced your other message didn't work and deregister
>> everyone. Your ratification thing leaves the game in a slightly
>> different state if it did.
>
> Resolution of this one first will render the issue moot (I think?)
Not
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I hereby cause R2324 make all currently active players except myself
> > inactive (this is a trivial expansion to a list, so should work).
>
> Well, I'm not convinced your other message didn't work and der
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I hereby cause R2324 make all currently active players except myself
> inactive (this is a trivial expansion to a list, so should work).
Well, I'm not convinced your other message didn't work and deregister
everyone. Your ratification thing l
On 11-01-26 05:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
I can't be bothered to read that, but I deregister if I can.
Glad to know you're above all this scamming stuff.
You may recall when I had a scorched-earth scam ready as Dealor and
chose not to use it.
-scshunt
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I can't be bothered to read that, but I deregister if I can.
Glad to know you're above all this scamming stuff.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 13:03, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I'll likely wait to propose this until after the current scam(s) have
>> been resolved and the gamestate can be quantified (as I re-registered
>> mid-scam and don't care to sort it out). I am open t
Yay! I support such a system, be it yours or omd's. =)
I have one comment: About the Ultimate Public Servant... I think
Statistician should be added to the list of required offices.
~ Roujo
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I'll likely wait to propose this until after the c
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I'll likely wait to propose this until after the current scam(s) have
> been resolved and the gamestate can be quantified (as I re-registered
> mid-scam and don't care to sort it out). I am open to suggestions for
> additional achievements, or
I'll likely wait to propose this until after the current scam(s) have
been resolved and the gamestate can be quantified (as I re-registered
mid-scam and don't care to sort it out). I am open to suggestions for
additional achievements, or better (more-punny) names, as well as
general comments and cr
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
> However, I'll note that the proposal (both of them actually)
> that purportedly fixed ratification was distributed with the same
> incorrect description, and I actually deregistered during its voting
> period, making it a substantive error. The resolution was al
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > What's incorrect about eligible voter description? It's the boilerplate
> > from many previous and I believe it's technically accurate.
>
> As I saw ais523 mention in the IRC backlog, the class of eligib
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> What's incorrect about eligible voter description? It's the boilerplate
> from many previous and I believe it's technically accurate.
As I saw ais523 mention in the IRC backlog, the class of eligible
voters you specified ("active players at
17 matches
Mail list logo
