Well, even if that's true, most ribbons still do exist because of
self-ratification.
On 11/27/2017 7:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
What's the problem? Apparently it is rule 2125's (Regulated Actions)
most recent amendment. That rule now states (in relevant part
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> > What's the problem? Apparently it is rule 2125's (Regulated Actions)
> > most recent amendment. That rule now states (in relevant part) that "A
> > Restricted Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules, and
> > only using the methods explicitly s
God, I really need to stop making so many typos.
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 18:59 VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> The statement in CFJ 1610 is "G. owns a Black Ribbon.". I judge that e
>> does not, this CFJ is FALSE
>>
>
> 3610, surely?
--
>From V.J. Ra
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 18:59 VJ Rada wrote:
> The statement in CFJ 1610 is "G. owns a Black Ribbon.". I judge that e
> does not, this CFJ is FALSE
>
3610, surely?
This means my Transparent Ribbon attempt failed, didn't it? :(
On 11/27/2017 6:59 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
The statement in CFJ 1610 is "G. owns a Black Ribbon.". I judge that e
does not, this CFJ is FALSE
A proposal passed named "Plain Old Bribery" (7979) which had the text
"Every Player who cast a
5 matches
Mail list logo
