On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> ehird had already changed eir name to tusho at the time and was not a
>>> player in any case. It is not clear whether the precedent from CFJs
>>> 1703 an
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ehird had already changed eir name to tusho at the time and was not a
>> player in any case. It is not clear whether the precedent from CFJs
>> 1703 and 1361 would still apply in this case.
>>
>> -root
>>
>
> Which is (i believ
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I see no reason for it to have failed. Can you point me to where e
>>> changed it back? I can't find it in my archive.
>>
>> The argument for failure wa
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I see no reason for it to have failed. Can you point me to where e
>> changed it back? I can't find it in my archive.
>
> The argument for failure was that ehird still refered to the old
> ehird, and thus having avpx named ehi
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/7/18 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Because avpx changed eir nickname to ehird. If e's changed it back,
>>> or it was determined to have f
2008/7/18 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I see no reason for it to have failed.
Because I am ehird.
> Can you point me to where e
> changed it back? I can't find it in my archive.
Dunno, someone said e did.
tusho
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/18 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Because avpx changed eir nickname to ehird. If e's changed it back,
>> or it was determined to have failed, I missed that.
>>
>> -root
>>
>
> e changed it back and it probably fai
2008/7/18 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Because avpx changed eir nickname to ehird. If e's changed it back,
> or it was determined to have failed, I missed that.
>
> -root
>
e changed it back and it probably failed
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
>> The Registrar's report should self-ratify IMO, as it's probably the
>> report in which a mistake can cause the largest chaos to the gamestate.
>
> Well given that the July 4 report is s
On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Is there an objective here? (apart from annoyance?)
BobTHJ
Consider it a verbose and chaotic version of "We should really have a
proposal limit like CFJs."
This'll play havoc with PerlNomic and the
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
>> Well given that the July 4 report is self-contradictory (lists ehird's
>> deregistration as an event, but still has em on the player list) it's
>> probably good that it doesn't right now :). -G.
> Wasn't that one ratified by hand?
No I checked, e ratified th
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 15:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> > The Registrar's report should self-ratify IMO, as it's probably the
> > report in which a mistake can cause the largest chaos to the gamestate.
>
> Well given that the July 4 report is self-contradictory
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> The Registrar's report should self-ratify IMO, as it's probably the
> report in which a mistake can cause the largest chaos to the gamestate.
Well given that the July 4 report is self-contradictory (lists ehird's
deregistration as an event, but still has em on
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 15:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> > CFJs don't stop ratification unless they clearly state that they are for
> > the purpose of stopping ratification. (I was intending to use this to
> > force through my Disclaimer Scam, but I think it woul
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> CFJs don't stop ratification unless they clearly state that they are for
> the purpose of stopping ratification. (I was intending to use this to
> force through my Disclaimer Scam, but I think it would have failed on
> other grounds.)
Well the Registrar's repo
ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 14:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>>> But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
>> Uh, weren't CFJs 2074-2075 raised in time to stop ratification?
>> I don't think a conspiracy of delaying those CFJs stops ratificatio
Goethe wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
>
> Uh, weren't CFJs 2074-2075 raised in time to stop ratification?
> I don't think a conspiracy of delaying those CFJs stops ratification,
> does it? -Goethe
The CoE(s) against the results on
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 14:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> > But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
>
> Uh, weren't CFJs 2074-2075 raised in time to stop ratification?
> I don't think a conspiracy of delaying those CFJs stops ratification,
> does it? -G
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
Uh, weren't CFJs 2074-2075 raised in time to stop ratification?
I don't think a conspiracy of delaying those CFJs stops ratification,
does it? -Goethe
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Zefram, I'm wondering if the abuse modifies your general "Proposals
>should be Free" stance
Not much. I'm still firmly opposed to requiring payment to submit
proposals or get them distributed, and also opposed to tight rate
limiting and other artificial restrictions. For the
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
> (Btw, e was awarded the patent title "Infinite Boor"
> for that, but it's not listed in the herald's report. Was it removed?)
I'd remember that I think, as far as I recall it wasn't in the report when
I was first herald in 2001 or since. -goethe
2008/7/17 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But since you're not a player, none of these are actually proposals.
>
> -zefram
>
But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> Proto: Limit the amount of proposals a week a user can make.
>
> It's worth noting that such limits existed from at least prior to 2001
> through 2006. Anyone else care to commen
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> Proto: Limit the amount of proposals a week a user can make.
It's worth noting that such limits existed from at least prior to 2001
through 2006. Anyone else care to comment on how far back before 2001
they went? Limits were based on currency, cards,
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 21:55 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> Proto: Limit the amount of proposals a week a user can make.
>
> Duh.
I protoprotoed implementing that with Goethe's new Card system.
--
ais523
2008/7/17 ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:14 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> tusho wrote:
>>
>> > I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 1" (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
>> > world #1!}
>> [snip]
>> > I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 450" (AI=1,II=0):
>> > {Hello, wor
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:17 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:14 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> tusho wrote:
>>
>> > I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 1" (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
>> > world #1!}
>> [snip]
>> > I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 450"
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tusho wrote:
>
>> I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 1" (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
>> world #1!}
> [snip]
>> I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 450" (AI=1,II=0):
>> {Hello, world #450!}
>
> Proto-proto: Amend
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:14 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> tusho wrote:
>
> > I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 1" (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
> > world #1!}
> [snip]
> > I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 450" (AI=1,II=0):
> > {Hello, world #450!}
>
> Proto-proto: Amend Rule 2161 (
tusho wrote:
> I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 1" (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
> world #1!}
[snip]
> I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 450" (AI=1,II=0):
> {Hello, world #450!}
Proto-proto: Amend Rule 2161 (ID Numbers) to allow officers to
assign initially-chaotic ID numbers b
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 12:36 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > I withdraw my proposal titled Exorcism. I request that Goethe submit a
> > suitably similar proposal that would accomplish the intended purpose.
>
> First things first. Where does tusho's playerhoo
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I withdraw my proposal titled Exorcism. I request that Goethe submit a
> suitably similar proposal that would accomplish the intended purpose.
First things first. Where does tusho's playerhood stand with the
fact that OscarMeyr's AGAINST vote was discove
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Elliott Hird
>> Exorcism
>> AI: 1
>> II: 0
>
> This will likely need to be a higher AI.
>
> Side note: looks like the first thing to do for minor a
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Elliott Hird
>> Exorcism
>> AI: 1
>> II: 0
>
> This will likely need to be a higher AI.
>
Why? and what would you recommend?
BobTHJ
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can't the Promotor distribute the Exorcism one first? But I'm guessing
> that before Exorcism is resolved, the Demon stuff will need to be
> distributed too?
>
Nope. The Promotor need only to distribute them by Sun, 27 Jul 2008
23:5
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> Um, that'll be distributed along with mine.
Doesn't have to be. Zefram tends to distribute twice a week, but can
legally hold them up to a week, do the cancel one immediately, etc.
Since the AI has to be changed (I think), might want to add a provisio
2008/7/17 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Elliott Hird
> Can't the Promotor distribute the Exorcism one first? But I'm guessing
> that before Exorcism is resolved, the Demon stuff will need to be
> distributed too?
>
bingo
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Exorcism
>> AI: 1
>> II: 0
>> {
>> Upon adoption of this proposal each proposal whose title includes the
>> word "Demon" which is in the Pr
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Elliott Hird
> Exorcism
> AI: 1
> II: 0
This will likely need to be a higher AI.
Side note: looks like the first thing to do for minor arcana is
to start charging for proposal distribution again :(.
-Goethe
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um, that'll be distributed along with mine.
Not if the Promotor decides for some reason to wait to distribute
yours. I can't image why e might decide to do that, though.
Apparently "social barrier" doesn't mean anything t
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Exorcism
>> AI: 1
>> II: 0
>> {
>> Upon adoption of this proposal each proposal whose title includes the
>> word "Demon" which is in the Pr
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Exorcism
> AI: 1
> II: 0
> {
> Upon adoption of this proposal each proposal whose title includes the
> word "Demon" which is in the Proposal Pool is removed from the
> Proposal Pool without being distributed.
> }
>
>
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is there an objective here? (apart from annoyance?)
>
> BobTHJ
>
Consider it a verbose and chaotic version of "We should really have a
proposal limit like CFJs."
This'll play havoc with PerlNomic and the AAA too, I think.
tusho
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose the following proposal, named "Demon 1" (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
> world #1!}
Is there an objective here? (apart from annoyance?)
BobTHJ
44 matches
Mail list logo
