On Monday 16 June 2008 6:39:52 Nick Vanderweit wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You'd have to have a good definition of "gamestate".
>
> If it's not explicitly prohibited, then why bother disallowing it?
> We'll prohibit what we see as counter t
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 16 June 2008 10:13:14 ihope wrote:
>> Hmm, yes, you're probably right about the contract-defined actions
>> thing. I would rather have a sentence or two stating that the
>> gamestate can only be changed as the rules
On Monday 16 June 2008 10:13:14 ihope wrote:
> Hmm, yes, you're probably right about the contract-defined actions
> thing. I would rather have a sentence or two stating that the
> gamestate can only be changed as the rules allow than a list of what's
> regulated and what's not that uses ambiguous t
On 6/16/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Those would fall under "the rules do not have the power to prevent it"
> in the new rule, the Soviet-style "everything not explicitly allowed is
> prohibited" approach is distasteful nonetheless. Upon reflection, I
> think it would also break cont
2008/6/16 Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 5547 D1 2ais523
> FOR
>
>> 5548 D1 3Murphy Chronological order
> FOR
>
>> 5549 D1 2Wooble Earning Interest
> FOR
>
>> 5550 O1 1Ivan Hope Tongue-tied
> AGAINST * 3, FOR * 1
>
>> 5551 O1 1BobTHJ Empo
> 5547 D1 2ais523
FOR
> 5548 D1 3Murphy Chronological order
FOR
> 5549 D1 2Wooble Earning Interest
FOR
> 5550 O1 1Ivan Hope Tongue-tied
AGAINST * 3, FOR * 1
> 5551 O1 1BobTHJ Empower the Notary
FOR * 4
> 5552 O1 1.7 Murphy Clerk disi
Wooble wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:18 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hmm, why is everybody (except one voting PRESENT, apparently) against
>> this? Does it break something?
>
> Some people prefer to have the right to do the thousands if not
> millions of non-game-related actions t
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:18 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, why is everybody (except one voting PRESENT, apparently) against
> this? Does it break something?
Some people prefer to have the right to do the thousands if not
millions of non-game-related actions they perform on a daily ba
> Proposal 5554 (Democratic, AI=3, Interest=1) by Ivan Hope
> Isn't that just silly?
>
> In rule 101, remove "ii. Every player has the right to perform an
> action which is not regulated." and subtract 1 from the number of each
> following element of the list. Replace the text of rule 2125 with "It
9 matches
Mail list logo
