Goethe wrote:
It is not clear to me if eligibility in terms of Appeals judges
includes turning:
As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the
Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to
replace em.
clause (iv) of R911:
iv) E is ineligible to Ju
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
As soon as possible after announcing the results of an Agoran
decision,
Why all Agoran decisions, rather than just proposals?
Why not? Besides, we don't have any other types of Agoran decisions
at the moment.
Maud wrote:
On 3/23/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I assign CFJ 1608 to Maud. Text is here:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-January/002784.html
I (proto-)judge the statement of CFJ 1608 to be TRUE.
Actually, this may be trivially true due
Maud wrote:
On 3/28/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, this may be trivially true due to Rule 2034.
If I understand the argument you intend, this would depend on Agorans
agreeing not to challenge the vote collector's announcement of
results.
Yes, that's what I had in mind.
Maud wrote:
On 3/28/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, this may be trivially true due to Rule 2034.
Murphy,
Since I was running out of time in which to judge, I had to submit a
version of the judgement which did not take into account your argument
regarding rule 2034
Levi wrote:
Attempt at cleaning up the Excess CFJ rule. I've used the following
as a basis for this change
1. The use of 'dismiss' is unclear, due to DISMISS being a valid
judgement for a CFJ, but dismissal through a CFJ being an
Excess CFJ should be different to dismissal under rule 1565
Levi wrote:
In this vein, everything after the
first paragraph of this proposal could be replaced with:
"The time limit for assigning a judge to an Excess CFJ is extended
by 106 years."
Is this only due to the deferral process not being specific enough? or
have I missed something else here?
Maud wrote:
On 4/3/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I intend to make Maud Herald by Agoran Consent.
You're doing this for the pun, aren't you?
What pun? Now if your nickname was Lloyd...
Zefram wrote:
as I do only structural markup and not visual design, if someone wants
to produce a CSS stylesheet that might be a useful addition.
http://www.oswd.org/
Zefram wrote:
Enact a rule with title "Power Controls Mutability", Power=3, and text:
No entity with power below the power of this rule can
(a) cause an entity to have power greater than its own.
(b) adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than
its own
Goethe wrote:
Can you post the last version of the full Stare Decisis (official
> or unofficial) as far as you maintained it? Then I can start adding.
I always just took this from http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/stare.php
Also, it looks like the weekly "state of the bench" listing eligi
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Repeal Rule 2126 (Voting Credits).
Not going to turn pre-existing VCs into beads?
Hey, you're the one who was complaining about VC inflation. :)
* One Green Bead to bar a player from judging a CFJ.
This would be a nightmare in a crisis.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
A player may change emself from sitting or lying down, or vice
versa, by announcement.
s/,/ to standing,/
No, actually I meant "from sitting to lying down, or vice versa". If
you're standing, then you must wait till you'r
Goethe wrote:
Rule 2128 allows you to specify a contest to determine the next winner.
It doesn't say you have to run the contest. If I come up with a good
contest and offer to run it, would you be willing to invite players to
enter to win as per R2128?
I don't see why not.
In any case, yo
Goethe wrote:
The second point, though, is plain old critical mass. At the time
I joined, the game peaked at perhaps 15 players who were actively
participating plus another 10 who were semi-active. That's
a vastly different dynamic the current ~10 players. When we
dismantled the currency sys
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
you're standing, then you must wait till you're assigned something
(switching you to sitting) before opting out of further judicial work.
Sounds unwise. I think one should be able to opt out at any time.
The concept of a "standing cou
Maud wrote:
4932 AGAINST <-- (I've missed some discussion. Aren't these
4933 AGAINST <-- attempting to do basically the same thing?)
The difference is whether an Excess CFJ that gets assigned may
still be refused.
4935 FOR (Why ``contentiousness''? I mean, I know why, but why?
quazie wrote:
4930 | Simple VC win | Goethe| 1* | 02Apr07 | D
FOR
Not to the PF.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
An Oligarch may refuse a proposal by announcement. A refused
proposal ceases to be a proposal.
Nice try, but I don't think this will work at Power=1. Rule 106
at Power=3 calls for a proposal to be adopted if the vote on it is
favourable, wh
quazie wrote:
I'm not sure if the rules allow me to do this or not. I request to not
judge the above linked CFJs.
You're allowed to make the request, but it doesn't actually make
you ineligible. Eris, now that you're back (well come!), can you
comment on the [bracketed] portions of my "Stan
Goethe wrote:
Fair enough. But the point was, when Zefram and I were looking at if
we could block Murphy et al.'s proposal, we noticed that a CotC could
legally mint an unbounded number of VCs, by an as-long-as-you-want
list of linked, trivial CFJs. Instant, overpowering voting, worse
than the
Zefram wrote:
Eep, here's another message with datestamps crossing midnight. (I just
CFJed about this concerning Quazie's VC spending.) Headers:
I think the "normal domain of technical control" argument should
continue to hold.
I remove "Proposal Racket" from the pool.
It was titled "Pro
OscarMeyr wrote:
On Apr 29, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Zefram wrote:
Oh, this seems a good time to point out: the would-be Oligarchs could
have avoided the whole VC race by simply distributing the Oligarch
proposal last week, so that it would be contested under that week's
unchangeable VLOPs. We certa
Roger Hicks wrote:
Well...let's see. I'm off to a good start.
Triggering a CFJ while joining the game is a fine Agoran tradition.
How about:
I hereby register for Agora Nomic.
Alas, this is ineffective because it wasn't sent to a Public Forum. You
had the right idea the first time with a
Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
I could swear that some variation or other of this issue has been
judged in the past, but darned if I can find it.
It was the opposite. The rules required that new players
"request registration." I tried to register by announcing
"I register."
The CFJ was aro
Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
Thanks, it was CFJ 1266 (and was dismissed because it consisted of
multiple statements).
Oh yes, I'd forgotten an idiot newbie did that one.
Your words, not mine.
There's another CFJ right before/after. Look for one called by Blob,
judged by Steve, with the
Goethe wrote:
CFJ 1630:
We're all mad, here.
Levi judged:
I issue a judgement of DISMISSED as irrelevant to the rules.
I call for appeal of CFJ 1630. The truth of CFJ 1630 tells us
everything we need to know about the rules.
Not to the PF, but it's not clear that Rule 1564 cares.
Eris wrote:
On 5/3/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
4941 4942 4943 4944 4945 4946
AI 3 3 3 3 1.1 1.1
VI 0.75 7 3.5 *U*1 2.5
4945 looks like failed to pass to me. Or is there some quirk I'm mis
Maud wrote:
On 5/4/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I struggled with making it sufficiently generic and yet clear. The
intent is that at any point, the voting limit is one less than it
would be if the voter was not a natural person.
I have a better idea: restrict playerhood to actual pers
Maud wrote:
On 5/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Related question: if Agoran decisions have not been properly initiated
on proposals for the past few months, does the last paragraph of R2034
still manage to make the result announcements effective?
Rule 2034 does seem to apply here, an
Zefram wrote:
I hereby submit the following proposal, titled "initialise activity",
and set its AI to 1.1:
{{{
Amend rule 2130 by appending the paragraph:
Registration as a player causes the new player to become active.
All non-players are inactive.
}}}
I hereby submit the follo
Zefram wrote:
Proposal: The Standing Court
The question has recently been raised of whether merely quoting a
proposal in this fashion is sufficient to indicate submission of it.
You may want to disambiguate.
I still think the preponderance of the evidence says "yes", even in
the case previo
The validity of BobTHJ's votes only affects the outcome of Proposal 4953,
which has null effect anyway since Proposal 4952 failed.
Additional note: The validity of my 8th and 9th votes per proposal
did not affect any of the outcomes.
Proto-Proposal: Agora shall make no law...
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 101 (Agoran Rights and Privileges) by changing the labels
(iv through viii) to (v through ix) respectively, and by replacing this
text:
iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a
judgeme
Proto-Proposal: Return of switches
(AI = 3, please)
Create a rule titled "Switches" with this text:
A switch is a property that the rules define as being a switch,
pertaining to a type of entity, and having one or more possible
values.
Each switch has exactly one value.
Zefram wrote:
iv. Every person has the right to invoke a judgement, appeal a
judgement, appeal a sentencing or judicial order binding em,
and receive judgement in a timely fashion.
Might have to detail what appeal achieves, in the light of the judgement
on "invoke"
Proto-Proposal: Beads and Wins
Rename Rule 2126 (Voting Credits) to "Beads", change its Power to 2,
and amend it to read:
Beads are property, but cannot be traded.
The Jewelor is an office. The Jewelor's report shall include
each player's beads.
Create a rule titled "Earnin
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Should be covered by the "receive judgement" clause.
If you apply that to the appeal clause, that implies that a single appeal
will have to result in an appeal judgement (where currently three are
required).
An appeal receives three judgements, yes
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Loose switches may be changed by announcement.
So anyone can change a loose switch at will? Why would you ever want
one of these?
I think we used to have some, though I forget what they were.
Activity is a player switch with values Active and
Zefram wrote:
5) 2 beads to ban a player from judging a CFJ to which e is not
already assigned.
Does banning make em ineligible for assignment, or only oblige em to
not return a judgement?
This should be "bar" (R897) rather than "ban".
A player with 42 or more beads
Maud wrote:
Each switch has a collection of possible states, is attached to
a specific host entity, and has the power to modify a specific
property of the host, called its feature. An entity is a switch
only if the rules say it is. The default state of a switch is,
unl
Maud wrote:
On 5/7/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This takes care of "what if no state is mentioned first?" (e.g. "the
values are the players"), but you should also state that null is a
possible state of any switch in this situation.
It would be simpler
Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed,
Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to creating
artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in that
way, but it sounds like quite a lot of extra work f
Eris wrote:
On 5/7/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In an earlier draft, I limited the capacity to flip certain switches
to certain entities. I decided that people would complain about that,
so I changed it to the current version, where people can but may not
flip certain switches.
Proto-Proposal: Mother, May I?
(AI = 3, please)
Create a rule titled "Mother, May I?" with Power 3 and this text:
The following terms are defined:
1. CANNOT (syn. IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID) Attempts to
perform the described action are unsuccessful.
2.
Zefram wrote:
If possible, amend rule 1871 by replacing the text "if e was turned
when it was called" with "if e is turned". Otherwise, amend rule 1871
by replacing the text "if e was not standing when it was called" with
"if e is not standing".
This would be clearer if worded as "If R1871 co
Maud wrote:
On 5/6/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Speaker and Clerk of the Courts
are changed to standing; all other players are changed to lying down.
What is the purpose of this provision of the proposal?
Orientations need
BobTHJ wrote:
I vote as follows:
Not to the Public Forum, hence ineffective (Rule 683 requires
votes to be published, Rule 478 defines publishing).
This also seems like a good opportunity to clarify TTttPF = "this
time to the Public Forum".
Zefram wrote:
Michael Slone wrote:
*An* action, just as I wrote.
Any action? This is such a strange reading that I'm still not convinced
I've understood you correctly. You're placing a restriction on which
executors have the power to perform actions on behalf of their executees.
The restric
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I interpreted it as equivalent to "a given action".
Still not specifying which action.
Nor does it need to. Okay, here's a third re-phrasing which is
hopefully unambiguous:
(original)
"If an executee is prohibiting from performing an
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
"If an executee is prohibiting from performing an
action, each of its executors is prohibited from performing the
action on behalf of that executee."
That's not the sentence I have trouble with. I was talking about
Holding executorship of
Maud wrote:
For the Agoran decision of whether to adopt and ecumenical
^^^ "an"
proposal, the eligible voters are all legislators, the quorum is
what it would be if only active players of Agora were eligible
voters, the ado
quazie wrote:
Create a rule entitled "Roll Call" with the folowing text
Cambot!
Gypsy!
Tom Servo!
Croow!
I should point out that the multi-level partnership scam was
originally Quazie's idea; I launched it solely because I was
available to do so just before the end of the Agoran week.
Maud wrote:
Persons have certain rights and privileges. Those rights which
are enumerated in the rules or recognized by the Agoran courts
may not be abridged, reduced, limited, or remove by Agoran law,
^^ "removed"
and a
Maud wrote:
On 5/13/07, quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If a disagreement occurs, then there was not enough information provided
to allow the public to agree.
What if someone is simply recalcitrant and maintains that Peter
Abelard is always an eligible voter if no list of eligible voters is
BobTHJ wrote:
Being that Primo Corporation is not a partnership, I don't believe it
would exist as a player under this new rule. As CEO, I am gravely
concerned by this language...
It assigns rights and obligations to all partners, therefore it's a
partnership even if it doesn't call itself on
BobTHJ wrote:
Create a rule called "Certification" with Power 1 that reads:
{
A Player must be certified to perform any of the following actions:
* Submitting a ballot for distributed proposals
* Supporting or opposing a dependent action
* Submitting a proposal for distribution
If a player who
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Human Point Two and I have made a R1742 binding agreement, the text of
which is:
I believe this doesn't work. Obligations on HP3 are translated, by
that agreement, into obligations on HP2 and Murphy, and then by HP2's
agreement into obligations on
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
If a partnership contains exactly the same members as
another registered partnership, then it is prohibited
from registering.
You haven't constructed such a situation, so this limitation is
insufficient. You need to determine the ult
Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:
If such an agreement is registered, then as soon as possible
after its membership changes, it shall announce which players
have joined and which have left. This requirement is satisfied
if the information is published by a member of the agree
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I submit the following linked CFJs, barring Zefram, Goethe, and the
Pineapple Partnership:
You've thus barred all the players that you could be sure would have
the knowledge necessary to judge the CFJs. Pessimal.
Well, you don't expect me to make i
OscarMeyr wrote:
Murphy, that leaves you and me as the only pre-2004 current
registrations. Which one of us gets to deregister next?
I /can't/.
Zefram wrote:
quazie wrote:
If I start a partnership with zefram, and then we announce that we are
in a partnership, and then add comex, do we need to announce this
addition under this rule?
Not under my proposed rule. I based it on the expectation that the
change of partners results in the
I wrote:
OscarMeyr wrote:
Murphy, that leaves you and me as the only pre-2004 current
registrations. Which one of us gets to deregister next?
I /can't/.
No, wait, we changed that bit. Well, I'm still not planning
to leave any time soon.
OscarMeyr wrote:
Unless I win and become Speaker.
Oh, /now/ it's on!
Goethe wrote:
I can't keep up right now. Need to enforce a break in myself, otherwise
RL will suffer more (already is, can never seem to not get sucked in).
Sincere apologies for leaving the CotC office so far behind. I'll continue
to watch the (encouraging) developments with interest.
I dere
I wrote:
I intend, with Agoran consent, to make the Pineapple Partnership
the holder of the Office of Registrar.
I intend, with Agoran consent, to make Human Point Two the holder
of the Office of International Associate Director of Personnel.
I'm holding off on these until we come to a consen
comex wrote:
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Primo Corporation the holder of
the office of Clerk of the Courts.
I object. IMO partnerships aren't stable enough to hold office yet.
BobTHJ wrote:
A Property Owning Entity (hereafter POE) is a type of entity. POEs may
Why not just "Owner"?
To point out the potential problem more explicitly:
If CFJ 1668 is judged true, then Primo-the-player ceased to exist when
comex became a Shareholder. I strongly urge that we install a natural
person as Clerk of the Courts until the statement of CFJ 1668 is
confirmed false, either by judgement o
comex wrote:
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 6:32 pm, Ed Murphy wrote:
To point out the potential problem more explicitly:
If CFJ 1668 is judged true, then Primo-the-player ceased to exist when
comex became a Shareholder. I strongly urge that we install a natural
person as Clerk of the Courts until
comex wrote:
I execute a Timing Order directing the Clerk of the Courts to select a
Trial Judge for CFJ 1659.
I assume you intend to activate the last paragraph of Rule 1006,
but I'm not sure whether it works when the office in question
is vacant.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Due to Rules 1006 and 1450, the office of CotC is currently
vacant. Or, under a different interpretation, I am being
continuously assigned by 1006 and removed by 1450, which is
no better.
R1006 says that an office that would otherwise be vacant is held by the
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Unless the Speaker cannot hold that office.
Which R1450 doesn't prevent. R1450 only triggers when the Speaker is
already CotC.
It depends whether you interpret "mutually exclusive" as a prohibition
(with the next clause amounting to "if
quazie wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
4970 FOR
4971 FOR
4972 FOR
4973 PRESENT
4974 PRESENT
4975 FOR
I vote in the following manner:
If Murphy has voted on a proposal as of 5/16/07 @ 9:50pm (PST), I vote
in the same manner as e has.
Alas, not to the PF.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
On behalf of Human Point Two:
On behalf of Human Point Four:
HP2 isn't a partner in HP4, is it?
It purports to be, at least. From the announcement in which HP4
was allegedly registered: "Human Point Two, Human Point Three,
and I have made a R17
Maud wrote:
I hereby place a bounty of one magic cookie and a (virtual) pat on the
back to the first person to write a good proto or proposal which would
repeal rules 1688, 1482, and 1030. Goodness of protos and proposals
will be evaluated relative to my biases, of course.
This only achieves
comex wrote:
On Sunday 13 May 2007 7:09 pm, Ed Murphy wrote:
Second-System Effect registers.
I call for judgement on the following statement:
Second-System Effect registered on or about Sun, 13 May 2007 16:09:28 -0700
Arguments:
Without knowledge of the agreement that defines SSE, this
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
e) A player may, with Agoran consent with a consent index of
H/L, perform an action and cause a rule with Power L to take
precedence over a rule with Power H with regard to that
action. E must be otherwise permitted to perform that
BobTHJ wrote:
This should stir the pot a bit... I'm doing this just to see what happens.
On behalf of the Pineapple Partnership I take the following action:
The Pineapple Partnership deregisters
On behalf of Second System Effect I take the following action:
Second System Effect deregisters
quazie wrote:
his is a mostly complete report from the IADoP.
Because we have more than enough CFJs as it is, you should
probably state explicitly that you're publishing the report
on behalf of IADoP Human Point Two.
While I'm at it, I state under penalty of perjury that the
membership of the
comex wrote:
On Thursday 17 May 2007 11:41 pm, Ed Murphy wrote:
While I'm at it, I state under penalty of perjury that the
membership of the HP2 agreement has not changed since its
registration, thus HP2's existence as a registered player
is not contingent on the outcome of CFJ 1668.
Maud wrote:
In this proto, I attempt to average dependent actions and actions with
Agoran consent.
I can't help but feel that a proto to adopt proposals with Agoran
consent is right around the corner.
Maud wrote:
On 5/19/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Players are prohibited from making false statements in any public
message.
You probably need the word ``willful'' in there somewhere.
And "as if they were true". This would de-criminalize things like
BobTHJ's recent clai
Maud wrote:
On 5/19/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And "as if they were true". This would de-criminalize things like
BobTHJ's recent claims to act on behalf of PP and HP2, which (in
context) were clearly only presented as if they /might/ be true.
I dis
Zefram wrote:
You use the term "Speakership" in several places where strictly you
should say "Speaker". ("Speakership" is not defined; in your terminology
"Speaker" refers to the office.) You also speak of a player *being*
the Speaker, where you should apply the strict distinction that a playe
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
(If either #2 or #3 is judged true, and HP3 through HP14 are players,
then by CFJ 1652 they were eligible voters on Proposals 4958-69, which
thus failed quorum. Naturally, the attempt to legislate #1 is part of
the affected batch, specifically Proposal 4964
Zefram wrote:
That's all the yin/yang activity we have planned. For the record,
all changes of membership of both partnerships have taken place in the
public forum. The present membership is:
* of Yin Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp
* of Yang Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp
Or at least, that's the memb
comex wrote:
I assign CFJs 1666-8 to The Hanging Judge. E is still turned.
Text at:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-May/006418.html
I encourage Zefram and Murphy to submit psuedojudgements.
I interpret a partnership's identity, not merely as the set of
Ambiguous eligibility can be resolved by making the relevant players
turned (lying down) without 2 objections, and/or inactive without
objection. (This does nothing for the bug pointed out by "fix
judicial turns", though.)
Zefram wrote:
quazie wrote:
They can be removed from being judges on them can't they??
Takes a while. I think we've got some still waiting on Peter.
1657-8, but the deliberation period has expired, so CotC comex
may recuse em at will.
(The CotC database should be mostly caught up at this
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
4965 | The Standing Court | Murphy| 1 | 06May07 | O
4969 | fix judicial turns | Zefram| 1 | 08May07 | O
Aside from failing quorum, both of these passed by a large margin.
I presume you'll repropose "The Standing Cou
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I'll do that later when I have some time. We're interpreting quorum
as calculated when the Assessor resolves the Agoran decision, right?
Nearly. It's when the Assessor performs the calculations to determine the
results, which appears to be
Maud wrote:
I'm not convinced any nomic would agree to such a ``deal''.
It might if you scammed it. Didn't we once plan to saddle Rishonomic
with a Governor General or something?
Zefram wrote:
I approve the Hanging Judge judging CFJs 1666-1667 according
to the pseudo-judgement that Murphy published in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
...
On behalf of the Hanging Judge, CFJs 1666-8 are judged FALSE.
...
I pseudo-judge CFJs 1666 and 1667 false, as direct consequences of th
Maud wrote:
Look at rules 1-15 and 1-16. Ick ick ick.
What's wrong with 1-16?
root wrote:
On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BEGIN TRANSACTION;
>
> UPDATE RULE 106
> SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
> WHERE TEXT = 'document';
>
> COMMIT TRANSACTION;
Query OK, 0 rules affected (0.00 sec)
Rules matched: 0 Changed: 0 Wa
root wrote:
On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > BEGIN TRANSACTION;
>> >
>> > UPDATE RULE 106
&g
root wrote:
On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A player may change emself from sitting to lying down, or vice
versa, by announcement.
Why can't standing players change themselves to lying down? Seems a
bit arbitrary.
The general concept of this pro
101 - 200 of 3637 matches
Mail list logo
