On 11/16/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um, how would you write that? If a scam does something illegal,
> it's already covered. If a scam uses a loophole, it's perfectly
> legal, and therefore using the term "scam" only speaks to motives...
> how do we assess motives?
Simple.
Adop
On 11/16/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Funnily enough, I wonder if this is too broad. "hostile action" could be
> any scam. How about "hostile action by another nomic"? -Goethe
A rule forbidding scams would be interesting.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, comex wrote:
> On 11/16/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Funnily enough, I wonder if this is too broad. "hostile action" could be
>> any scam. How about "hostile action by another nomic"? -Goethe
>
> A rule forbidding scams would be interesting.
Um, how would
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Funnily enough, I wonder if this is too broad. "hostile action" could be
any scam. How about "hostile action by another nomic"? -Goethe
That's a good point. I made a choice to leave out the 'by another nomic' clause
as I thought it provided a loophole (e.g., our game's no
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Funnily enough, I wonder if this is too broad. "hostile action" could be
>> any scam. How about "hostile action by another nomic"? -Goethe
>
> That's a good point. I made a choice to leave out the 'by another nomic'
> clause
>
Funnily enough, I wonder if this is too broad. "hostile action" could be
any scam. How about "hostile action by another nomic"? -Goethe
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
> I submit the following interested proposal with AI=1:
> {{{
> Goethe is coauthor of this proposal.
>
> Create a ru
6 matches
Mail list logo
