On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 4:37 PM, comex wrote:
> Proposal: Fix R107 (AI=3, II=0)
> {
> Amend Rule 107 by replacing "correctly identified" with "publicly
> identified".
I'm pretty sure that the identification should still be correct as
well as public.
--
C-walker (Charles Walker)
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Doesn't matter; the lack just needs to be pointed out.
>
> It needs to be "identified".
>
> On the one hand, if I personally identify a lack of information in the
> message (realize that there is a lack of inf
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:47 PM, comex wrote:
> someone? Or mention it in ##nomic, where 3 or 4 people might usually
> notice? Or in a DF, which, by CFJ, counts as notifying
> most-but-not-all players?
##nomic is a DF.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Doesn't matter; the lack just needs to be pointed out.
It needs to be "identified".
On the one hand, if I personally identify a lack of information in the
message (realize that there is a lack of information), but don't
mention it to anyone, it
comex wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 25, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>
>> NOTE: Redo with R107 required information and adjusted rate for points.
>
> FYI, you didn't give a list of valid options (but I'm not sending this
> ttpf; not trying to be a jerk)
>
>>
Doesn't ma
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
NOTE: Redo with R107 required information and adjusted rate for
points.
FYI, you didn't give a list of valid options (but I'm not sending this
ttpf; not trying to be a jerk)
6 matches
Mail list logo
