On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> Despite the attempts
> of the rules to define who's playing the game or not, in terms of a
> switch, it is generally accepted (except among some players of The Game)
> that games cannot freely cause arbitrary persons to be playing them;
> childr
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 19:22 -0700, Quazie wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, omd wrote:
> >> NUM AI AUTHORTITLE
> >> 7013 3 omd Ordinary Decisions
> > AGAINST. old and boring
> >> 7014 3 omd United States
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, omd wrote:
>> NUM AI AUTHOR TITLE
>> 7013 3 omd Ordinary Decisions
> AGAINST. old and boring
>> 7014 3 omd United States of Agora
> AGAINST
>> 7015 2 G., ais523 Promises
> FOR
>
>
On Apr 15, 2011, at 16:49, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 19:44, Alex Smith wrote:
> CFJ: Yally is a player.
>
> Arguments:
> Recently Yally embarked upon a campaign of systematic rules-breaking,
> pointing out that all the punishments listed in the ruleset for
> rules-br
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 19:44, Alex Smith wrote:
> CFJ: Yally is a player.
>
> Arguments:
> Recently Yally embarked upon a campaign of systematic rules-breaking,
> pointing out that all the punishments listed in the ruleset for
> rules-breaking could be avoided via more rules-breaking. However,
>
omd wrote:
> I register.
Remember to sit up, in case ratification did paper over your
previous registration.
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Elliott Hird wrote:
> I'm curious to know why people are voting against omd's proposals but
> for Promises. Both seem to fit the general "subverting democracy for
> fun, profit, and profit" theme.
I'm just plain-old bored with the term "ordinary".
Proto:
Create power-3 r
On 15 April 2011 19:58, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 15 April 2011 19:29, Charles Walker wrote:
>> The proposals about partnerships or the proposals about Souls and Soles?
>
> Um, the veto ones.
>
Well, I considered voting AGAINST 7013 but FOR 7014, but then changed
my mind because I don't really fa
On 15 April 2011 19:29, Charles Walker wrote:
> The proposals about partnerships or the proposals about Souls and Soles?
Um, the veto ones.
On 15 April 2011 17:28, Elliott Hird wrote:
> I'm curious to know why people are voting against omd's proposals but
> for Promises. Both seem to fit the general "subverting democracy for
> fun, profit, and profit" theme.
>
The proposals about partnerships or the proposals about Souls and Soles?
Er, I mean, why vote *against* omd's if you're voting for Promises.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 1:21 PM, omd wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
>> I'm curious to know why people are voting against omd's proposals but
>> for Promises. Both seem to fit the general "subverting democracy for
>> fun, profit, and profit" theme.
>
> The spirit
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> I'm curious to know why people are voting against omd's proposals but
> for Promises. Both seem to fit the general "subverting democracy for
> fun, profit, and profit" theme.
The spirit of privatization, and a backlash against the recent
ten
I'm curious to know why people are voting against omd's proposals but
for Promises. Both seem to fit the general "subverting democracy for
fun, profit, and profit" theme.
> 7013 3 omd Ordinary Decisions
> 7014 3 omd United States of Agora
> 7015 2 G., ais523Promises
Bah, time to frob the distribution-parsing script again.
ehird wrote:
> I Get Up on My Soapbox and say that points as an economy system is
> Absurd, and that we should all wait for a Derivative of ais523's
> Economic Proposal.
>> 7000 3.0 omd Souls
> AGAIN
I'm interpreting this as a reasonably clear typo of AGAINST,
especially in light
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
> > AGAINST, I think; we don't have a note for every little tradition in
> > the relevant rules. (Maybe we should, but I'd prefer a package deal.)
>
> The FLR should be annotated with all of the
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Elliott Hird wrote:
> AGAINST, I think; we don't have a note for every little tradition in
> the relevant rules. (Maybe we should, but I'd prefer a package deal.)
Well, you've hit on the right mechanism for it: an annotation in the FLR.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> AGAINST, I think; we don't have a note for every little tradition in
> the relevant rules. (Maybe we should, but I'd prefer a package deal.)
The FLR should be annotated with all of the registration CFJs, but
that will never happen.
AGAINST, I think; we don't have a note for every little tradition in
the relevant rules. (Maybe we should, but I'd prefer a package deal.)
20 matches
Mail list logo
