On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
R2125 uses the phrase as allowed by the rules. Where permitted by
other rules might be slightly different when multiple rules are in
conflict (not sure), but I doubt it differs in the level of required
explicitness. So any
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
[Still 274 messages behind but might as well]
I become active. I sit up.
Iff the office of Fearmongor is Assumed, I assume it.
I make ehird Quiet (call that wishful thinking :P )
-G.
Do you realize you're a
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
[Still 274 messages behind but might as well]
I become active. I sit up.
Iff the office of Fearmongor is Assumed, I assume it.
I make ehird Quiet (call that wishful
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 09:53 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
wrote:
[Still 274 messages behind but might as well]
I become active. I sit up.
Iff the office of Fearmongor is
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
I sell my soul to the Lord Demon of UNDEAD
CoE: You don't have sufficient ergs to do that.
This also ignores (but implicitly triggers) Clause 12.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 13:53, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
By which I of course meant rests... *facepalm*
Yally wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 14:23, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Yally wrote:
I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
NoV: Yally violated the Power=1 Rule 2215 (Truthiness) by claiming
that eir attempted erg destruction was a fee-based action.
Intended NoV,
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
There's a good argument that all announcement actions are fee-based
(zero is non-negative), so this might be valid even if you didn't have
enough ergs to use the normal
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I opine REMAND without prejudice on CFJ 2929a. Given the arguments on
the CFJ, the judge should ideally go into more detail as to what their
affect is, or if they're irrelevant (and if so, why).
The arguments all seemed
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
CFJ, II 1: A player with exactly 2 ergs remaining CAN destroy 1 erg in
eir own possession via a fee-based action.
CFJ, II 1: It is legal for a player with exactly 2 ergs remaining to
attempt to destroy 1 erg in eir own
Crap... I thought the 4th Amendment had predecence... =S
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
I sell my soul to the Lord Demon of UNDEAD
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 14:32, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Yally wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 14:23, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Yally wrote:
I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
NoV: Yally violated the Power=1 Rule 2215 (Truthiness) by claiming
that
omd wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
I pay fees to destroy 3 ergs in my possession.
There's a good argument that all announcement actions are fee-based
(zero is non-negative), so this might be valid even if you didn't have
enough ergs
G. wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I submit the following AI-1 proposal Out with the Dictator 1:
{{
Repeal Rule 2324.
[This is ineffective if the purported escalations worked.]
}}
I submit the following AI-3 proposal Out with the Dictator 3:
{{
Repeal Rule 2324.
}}
14 matches
Mail list logo
