On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> Taral wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Pavitra wrote:
>>> A player CAN play N Distrib-u-Matics to make an II(N-1) Undistributable
>>> proposal Distributable. E thereby becomes the proposal's sponsor. When a
>>> proposal becomes Undistribut
Taral wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Pavitra wrote:
>> A player CAN play N Distrib-u-Matics to make an II(N-1) Undistributable
>> proposal Distributable. E thereby becomes the proposal's sponsor. When a
>> proposal becomes Undistributable, it ceases to have a sponsor.
>
> Requires too m
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Pavitra wrote:
> A player CAN play N Distrib-u-Matics to make an II(N-1) Undistributable
> proposal Distributable. E thereby becomes the proposal's sponsor. When a
> proposal becomes Undistributable, it ceases to have a sponsor.
Requires too many. How about making
C-walker wrote:
> I would propose a system where there was a smaller cost to distribute
> disinterested proposals, but that isn't really possible with cards.
> There is always without objection Distributability, but this can get
> forgotten or objected to for unfair reasons.
>
> Another proto: the
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Taral wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I retract the quoted proposal, and submit the following, and make it
>> Distributable by announcement:
>
> How?
Stupid free distribution of disinterested proposals.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I retract the quoted proposal, and submit the following, and make it
> Distributable by announcement:
How?
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 16:11 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> The four players who players who cast the most unconditional votes FOR
>> this proposal with no votes against each win. In case of a tie, all the
>> tied players win as well.
> I object, and intend to cast 100 votes FOR it afte
7 matches
Mail list logo
