Ed Murphy wrote:
>Does this mean that you are the author of Proposal 5269?
I believe no one is. That's what I have recorded for it, and for the
precedent proposal 4963.
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Sat 3 Nov 17:35:00 pikhq -1B Proposal 5269 rejected (no R
to lose)
As previously noted, proposal 5269 was not submitted by pikhq. It was
in fact never submitted at all, but was a corruption of a proposal
that pikhq
Zefram wrote:
The Ministers Without Portfolio are the four persons who have most
recently won the game, with ties broken in favour of those whose
most recent registration was earliest.
This would hard-code the number of MWPs. "N persons (where N is the
number of prerogatives
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Apart from Goethe's refutation of "patent titles are bad for things
>that change frequently",
Goethe's situation was for patent titles that only rarely have any effect
on other game state. MWP identity has direct effect all the time.
>What would you consider good design for MWP
root wrote:
On 10/29/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at
the start of an ordinary proposal's voting period has a
voting limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would
be otherwise, rul
On 10/29/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at
> the start of an ordinary proposal's voting period has a
> voting limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would
> be otherwise, rules to th
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
(Having MWP as a PT was bad design, I reckon.)
Why?
PTs were designed, and work best, as mostly-permanent titles of
distinction that have very little influence on the game. They've never
been satisfactory for tracking frequently-changed state.
Apart from Goe
Zefram wrote:
> I wasn't around then. I'll take your word that it worked. Did the
> possession of ephemera affect game actions day to day, or were they
> collected up and only occasionally used to influence other game state?
Semi-volatile. During a quarter, you accumulated Boons for doing
Goo
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Umm, except for the wholly effective and relatively bug-free ephemera,
I wasn't around then. I'll take your word that it worked. Did the
possession of ephemera affect game actions day to day, or were they
collected up and only occasionally used to influence other game state?
Zefram wrote:
> PTs were designed, and work best, as mostly-permanent titles of
> distinction that have very little influence on the game. They've never
> been satisfactory for tracking frequently-changed state.
Umm, except for the wholly effective and relatively bug-free ephemera,
a fairly smoo
Ed Murphy wrote:
>>(Having MWP as a PT was bad design, I reckon.)
>
>Why?
PTs were designed, and work best, as mostly-permanent titles of
distinction that have very little influence on the game. They've never
been satisfactory for tracking frequently-changed state.
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Assessor's Voting Limits and Credits Report
There should be some violet VCs floating around due to patent title
awards. And, presuming that that win on points actually occurred, a
violet VC loss for whoever lost the PT of Minister Without Portfolio.
I'll work
On 10/28/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
> >Assessor's Voting Limits and Credits Report
>
> There should be some violet VCs floating around due to patent title
> awards. And, presuming that that win on points actually occurred, a
> violet VC loss for whoever lost the PT of
Zefram wrote:
Player (* = inactive)VLDP EVLOP VVLOP VCs
--
*Manu 1 4 41W
Pavitra1 5 5
*Quazie1 4 4 1R 1B
M
On 8/21/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I expect CFJ 1724 to be judged FALSE.
You do? Perhaps you should have put in some arguments.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Player (* = inactive)VLDP EVLOP VVLOP VCs
eekeeP is not listed.
I expect CFJ 1724 to be judged FALSE.
[When ties for determining Party were broken by alphabetical order,
Quazie's Party was Blue. Now that they are broken by order of VC
gain, e
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Player VLDP EVLOP VVLOP VCs (* = Gray)
root 1 6 1111* 1B
You haven't applied the end-of-week change that copies VVLOP to EVLOP.
17 matches
Mail list logo
