Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6682 - 6685

2010-04-06 Thread Sean Hunt
On 04/05/2010 04:37 PM, comex wrote: On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:04 PM, comex wrote: Bribes are fun, but I didn't really want to scam an office I haven't even been keeping up with the reports of. As Sgeo just mentioned in ##nomic, I incorrectly awarded Champion to inactive players, who since rec

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6682 - 6685

2010-04-06 Thread Sean Hunt
On 04/05/2010 03:21 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: G. wrote: On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, comex wrote: Alright, then, my last actions as Herald: Hear ye, hear ye. ALL PLAYERS (all 19 of them) have won the game. I award Champion to each of the following players in the following randomly selected order: Phoenix,

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6682 - 6685

2010-04-05 Thread Ed Murphy
comex wrote: > On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:04 PM, comex wrote: >> Bribes are fun, but I didn't really want to scam an office I haven't >> even been keeping up with the reports of. > > As Sgeo just mentioned in ##nomic, I incorrectly awarded Champion to > inactive players, who since recently cannot

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6682 - 6685

2010-04-05 Thread Sgeo
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:37 PM, comex wrote: > On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:04 PM, comex wrote: >> Bribes are fun, but I didn't really want to scam an office I haven't >> even been keeping up with the reports of. > > As Sgeo just mentioned in ##nomic, I incorrectly awarded Champion to > inactive play

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6682 - 6685

2010-04-05 Thread comex
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Oh, after rereading Rule 2188, you're right; it's clearly meant to >> apply to a specific (singular) proposal.  It was my belief that due to >> the wording, the first announcement awarded a win to everyone, and the >> second two were ineffectiv

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6682 - 6685

2010-04-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, comex wrote: > On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Gratuitous arguments: >>  1.  G.'s win announcements would have awarded wins in the order >>     Red players, Purple players, Green players, unrelated to >>     comex's ordering. > > Oh, after rereading Rule

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6682 - 6685

2010-04-05 Thread comex
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Gratuitous arguments: >  1.  G.'s win announcements would have awarded wins in the order >     Red players, Purple players, Green players, unrelated to >     comex's ordering. Oh, after rereading Rule 2188, you're right; it's clearly meant to a

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6682 - 6685

2010-04-05 Thread Ed Murphy
G. wrote: > On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, comex wrote: >> Alright, then, my last actions as Herald: Hear ye, hear ye. ALL >> PLAYERS (all 19 of them) have won the game. >> >> I award Champion to each of the following players in the following >> randomly selected order: Phoenix, G., Ienpw III, Warrigal, com

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6682 - 6685

2010-04-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, comex wrote: > On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, ais523 wrote: >>> On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 13:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> >>> They all passed? Way to cheapen wins... >> >> I agree... I expected like at least one last minute vote ch

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6682 - 6685

2010-04-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, comex wrote: > The identity of the Speaker is probably undefined now that > simultaneous wins have occurred: Heh, that's right, that's why it was previously pegged to the champion-awarding which can't be simultaneous. Sorry I missed that bug introduction when this change in

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6682 - 6685

2010-04-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, ais523 wrote: > I'm increasingly coming to think that we should probably go back to a > standard one-person-one-vote system for voting, at least for a while, > and work on another area of the game; messing with voting has become so > commonplace now that it just tends to bore p

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6682 - 6685

2010-04-05 Thread ais523
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 16:40 -0400, comex wrote: > On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, ais523 wrote: > >> On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 13:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> They all passed? Way to cheapen wins... > > > > I agree... I expected like at least on

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6682 - 6685

2010-04-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 13:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > They all passed? Way to cheapen wins... I agree... I expected like at least one last minute vote change along with that player switching chamber so at least one would fail. Oh well. -G.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6682 - 6685

2010-04-05 Thread ais523
On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 13:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Nope. Matches the exact language of a R2188 Win by Proposal, so: > > Win Announcement: A proposal awarding a win to one or more persons has > been been adopted (Proposal 6683), therefore by R2188, one or more persons > has won the game. >