On 4 June 2011 05:03, omd wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Charles Walker
> wrote:
>>> 7068 2 Walker Spending Points
>> CoE: I withdrew this version and submitted a fixed one which prevents
>> spending the same points on multiple actions.
>
> Admitted. This was improperly distr
On 5 June 2011 20:58, Ed Murphy wrote:
> As usual, this is deemed ineffective.
The ballots I submitted where I used AGAINT many times and then
defined it are still OK, though, yes?
ehird wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 06:16, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Does it really (asks the Assessor, expecting the unexpected)?
>
> I vote AGAINT proposal 7068.
As usual, this is deemed ineffective.
For Droowl's benefit, misspellings are generally covered by
Rule 754 (1), but "AGAINT" is a special case
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
> > Honestly, I feel like it should trigger whenever there's no way to
> > change the blah blah blah /that most players know of/.
>
> How pragmatic.
Proto:
Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is a Nomic) by a
On 2 June 2011 12:54, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> How pragmatic.
It's pragtonism.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Honestly, I feel like it should trigger whenever there's no way to
> change the blah blah blah /that most players know of/.
How pragmatic.
On 2 June 2011 12:41, ais523 wrote:
> AIAN isn't massively effective, though; although it prevents the game
> breaking, it gives no information on what the best option to recover it
> might be. (If there's a dictatorship scam that exists even in the new
> ruleset, for instance, AIAN wouldn't block
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 12:36 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 07:07, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > AGAINST as it would make proposal enactment have only power 2, which likely
> > breaks the game
>
> Thanks to AIAN very little actually truly breaks the game in this sense.
AIAN isn't massively ef
On 2 June 2011 07:07, Sean Hunt wrote:
> AGAINST as it would make proposal enactment have only power 2, which likely
> breaks the game
Thanks to AIAN very little actually truly breaks the game in this sense.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 23:40 -0400, omd wrote:
>> > 7068 2 Walker Spending Points
>> AGAINST; I think I can perform multiple spending actions with a single
>> destruction (but a general-purpose definition of "cost" that was
>> caref
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011, omd wrote:
>> > 7063 2 G. Switcher Fixer Upper
>> AGAINST
>> > 7072 1.7 woggle Judicial Rank is Dead
>> AGAINST
>> > 7073 3 woggle Compression Artifact
>> AGAINST
>
> ??? A points thing?
I v
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 23:40 -0400, omd wrote:
> > 7068 2 Walker Spending Points
> AGAINST; I think I can perform multiple spending actions with a single
> destruction (but a general-purpose definition of "cost" that was
> careful about this could also be used by promises and would be pre
On Tue, 31 May 2011, omd wrote:
> > 7063 2 G. Switcher Fixer Upper
> AGAINST
> > 7072 1.7 woggle Judicial Rank is Dead
> AGAINST
> > 7073 3 woggle Compression Artifact
> AGAINST
??? A points thing?
13 matches
Mail list logo
