I wrote:
> * NICE TRY, appropriate if the Victory Condition was not
> satisfied as described, but the initiator could reasonably
> have expected that it was so satisfied
>
> * SHAME, appropriate if the Victory Condition was not satisfied
> as describe
omd wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 3110: Â I opine SHAME
>>
>> While Rule 754 (2) does not apply to "Victory Condition", Rule 2125 (c)
>> does apply to "cause to satisfy a Victory Condition", which neutralizes
>> this scam independently of Rule 2125 (e).
>
> Gratui
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 07:27 PM, omd wrote:
>> Proposal: No shame in trying (AI=1.7)
>>
>> Amend Rule 2343 (Victory Cases) by replacing "SHAME" with "NO GLORY".
>
> AGAINST. I like victory having flavorful language.
Maybe SHAME should be tied to Losing Con
On 10/24/2011 07:27 PM, omd wrote:
> Proposal: No shame in trying (AI=1.7)
>
> Amend Rule 2343 (Victory Cases) by replacing "SHAME" with "NO GLORY".
AGAINST. I like victory having flavorful language.
On 10/24/2011 06:41 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3116
>>
>> == CFJ 3116 ==
>>
>>If the Promise cited in CFJ 3114 were cashed by
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3116
>
> == CFJ 3116 ==
>
> If the Promise cited in CFJ 3114 were cashed by ais523, G. would
> generally be found NOT GUILT
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 16:49, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> are you human i'm so confused
>
>
yes i tots m
are you human i'm so confused
Amar Chendra wrote:
> Government being more transparent is a biased proposal. It is
> fundamentally wrong. It is inf act a threat to the nation.
Well, yes (for certain definitions of "nation"), but there are
some procedural issues with your opposition:
1) You need to register as a player (Rul
Mister Snuggles wrote:
> i vote against proposals 7125-7134.
NttPF, not that it matters.
i vote against proposals 7125-7134.
<3
mister snuggles
On 24 October 2011 03:27, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I support and do so, nominating omd.
>
> I accept.
>
Wait - I ended up as Rulekeepor too... I missed that :-S
(I need to pay more attention to what goes on here, sometimes, and not
just skim read reports
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Arguments:
> 1. Once the promise is in someone else's hands, G. generally can't
> prevent the breach from occurring (see R1504(e)).
> 2. This promise contained an illegal action when the promise was
> created. The judge is asked to also opi
13 matches
Mail list logo
