oh yah it's pretty obvious - no (0) style for invalid rules.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> hm can't remember what I intended I'll ponder and respond.
>
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > While not explicitly stated in the rules, I read them as sugges
VALID, and a set of intriguing arguments that would take some refuting
Counsellor. Style +2.0.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I humbly submit the following Docket #1 argument:
>
> Eff-arr-quee should be considered vastly superior to all other games.
> I will refute the arguments o
hm can't remember what I intended I'll ponder and respond.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> While not explicitly stated in the rules, I read them as suggesting
> that an INVALID rule can not have style points awarded.
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:43 AM Kerim Aydin
While not explicitly stated in the rules, I read them as suggesting
that an INVALID rule can not have style points awarded.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:43 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> This is INVALID As per #6: "for you" doesn't address anyone with "deserved
> respect" (while #6 doesn't supply ev
This is INVALID As per #6: "for you" doesn't address anyone with "deserved
respect" (while #6 doesn't supply every grammatically appropriate address
in the explicit list of titles, the first clause makes it clear that all
forms of address need similar levels of respect - "you" needs to be "your
5 matches
Mail list logo
