On 01/29/2012 11:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012, Pavitra wrote:
>> Similar remarks apply for "Tavros Nitram", "Pavitra", and "Goethe". (I
>> don't recall whether G. changed eir name before or after the current
>> name rule was written, but the statute of limitations is almost
>> ce
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012, Pavitra wrote:
> Similar remarks apply for "Tavros Nitram", "Pavitra", and "Goethe". (I
> don't recall whether G. changed eir name before or after the current
> name rule was written, but the statute of limitations is almost
> certainly run out on that one anyway.) There may
On 01/29/2012 07:58 PM, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:35 PM, omd wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
—Machiavelli
>>
>> ...Did I spell it wrong?
>>
>> —Machiavelli
>
> No, but it has been generally
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:58 PM, omd wrote:
> No, but it has been generally used to refer to another entity within
> the past three months.
...
I knew that.
—Machiavelli
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:35 PM, omd wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
>>> —Machiavelli
>
> ...Did I spell it wrong?
>
> —Machiavelli
No, but it has been generally used to refer to another entity within
the past
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:35 PM, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> —Machiavelli
...Did I spell it wrong?
—Machiavelli
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> —Machiavelli
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM, The Person Formerly Known As 441344
<441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hereby change my nickname from 441344 to The Person Formerly Known As
> 441344.
> I submit as arguments to the first CFJ initiated in the above-quoted
> message the text {It is unlikely that any play
On 1/29/12, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:12 AM, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> CFJ 3156:
>> Such a ratification could not cause a person to become a player
>> without their consent, because doing so would introduce an
>> inconsistency between the gamestate and rule 101, bu
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:12 AM, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CFJ 3156:
> Such a ratification could not cause a person to become a player
> without their consent, because doing so would introduce an
> inconsistency between the gamestate and rule 101, but this would
> generally not be fulfil
ehird wrote:
I assume Murphy and vote Murphy in all current elections.
CoE: No you don't.
Tanner Swett wrote:
So, if we disallow prosecuting John Does, then we don't get the
satisfaction of punishing them. If we allow prosecuting them, we don't
get the satisfaction of having a fully known game state.
Maybe Rule 2170's sock-puppet mechanism could be fixed up for the
purpose, along t
12 matches
Mail list logo