Warrigal wrote:
Can I participate despite my inactivity?
Yes. There's an informal standing strategy of in the absence of other
evidence, lynch the inactive townspersons first, but those lynched
according to this strategy in session #2 (Zefram and avpx) were also
inactive in the
On 15 Dec 2008, at 15:36, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Allow conversion of sentences
Agora, systematically stripping away outlaws' rights since 2008
On 15 Dec 2008, at 15:47, Ed Murphy wrote:
Why are you objecting to this one in particular? It depends on the
contract that Warrigal already terminated.
If Warrigal recreates it it will reactivate.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Allow conversion of sentences
(AI = 3, please)
To be fair, CHOKEY for an Epsilon is sort of a slap on the wrist-- the
only effect is that the ninny's caste can't usefully be increased.
For me, the new
On 15 Dec 2008, at 17:25, comex wrote:
Not
only would the same require many more coins on eir part, if e breaks
the Rules in any way whatsoever (say, by failing to publish a PBA
report) anyone can deregister em by announcement.
I did not publish a report last week.
Well, I've been thrown to
On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 18:07 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
6019 O 1 1.0 Murphy Undo the scam already
FOR x 5
ehird/comex, how much would you bribe me to cast AGAINSTx8 on this one?
(Assuming you can't somehow leverage your dictatorship to stop it
passing in the first place...)
--
ais523
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 12:14 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
Also, it is a very bad idea to put SHOULDs into the rules which cause
things other than players or people to carefully consider their actions.
Interpretation is performed by people.
(I remember when I submitted the
On 15 Dec 2008, at 18:00, Alex Smith wrote:
(Assuming you can't somehow leverage your dictatorship to stop it
passing in the first place...)
of course we can.
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 15 Dec 2008, at 15:23, Ed Murphy wrote:
I intend, without objection, to terminate The Zombie of The List,
quoted below:
I object, Warrigal may be reelected.
If anyone thinks it worthwhile to maintain The List for the sole
purpose of zombifying my
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 15 Dec 2008, at 18:00, Alex Smith wrote:
(Assuming you can't somehow leverage your dictatorship to stop it
passing in the first place...)
of course we can.
How do you suppose? It's been judged that
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I nominate myself as Rulekeepor.
Sorry I'm behind; I'm very busy IRL.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
Well, I've been thrown to the wolves. Who wants to do the honor?
You know you can avoid this by spending some coins.
On 15 Dec 2008, at 22:09, comex wrote:
How do you suppose? It's been judged that annotations don't work, and
that the democratization did work; neither was appealed. We passed a
useless scam proposal.
Oh.
Shit.
ehird wrote:
On 15 Dec 2008, at 22:09, comex wrote:
How do you suppose? It's been judged that annotations don't work, and
that the democratization did work; neither was appealed. We passed a
useless scam proposal.
Oh.
Shit.
Thank you, Mr. Data, that will be all.
On 15 Dec 2008, at 23:04, Roger Hicks wrote:
I (serving as language police) transfer a prop from ehird to Murphy
for a great Star Trek reference.
I transfer a prop from BobTHJ to myself for using language
(specifically, the word language).
ehird wrote:
On 15 Dec 2008, at 23:04, Roger Hicks wrote:
I (serving as language police) transfer a prop from ehird to Murphy
for a great Star Trek reference.
I transfer a prop from BobTHJ to myself for using language
(specifically, the word language).
NttPF.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
ehird wrote:
On 15 Dec 2008, at 23:04, Roger Hicks wrote:
I (serving as language police) transfer a prop from ehird to Murphy
for a great Star Trek reference.
I transfer a prop from BobTHJ to myself for using language
2008/12/15 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
ehird wrote:
On 15 Dec 2008, at 23:04, Roger Hicks wrote:
I (serving as language police) transfer a prop from ehird to Murphy
for a great Star Trek reference.
I
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Proposal: Undo the rest of 5956
Amend Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) by replacing each instance
of role with office.
This omits Rule 2218.
RFC: If Murphy submitted a long proposal titled Cleanup of Power=1.5
definitions that would cause a rule to contain the text {Murphy CAN
cause this rule to amend itself by announcement}, that proposal would
pass.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
2282 may still be affirmed on appeal. But yes, for completeness:
What does CFJ 2282 have to do with Rule 2218?
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:34 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:12 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
I publish a NoV accusing root of violating Rule 2143 by not publishing
the Conductor's report last week (the week that ended an hour ago).
I publish a NoV accusing root
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
With criminal charges on
top of it, I'll probably just drop the whole thing and deregister.
Just testing the new system :p
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
If a rule other than 2218 defines the Winning Condition of Solitude,
then repeal Rule 2218. Otherwise, amend it to read:
Note that Rule 2218 cannot define Winning Conditions anyway, since its
Power is only 1. (The
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
If anyone thinks it worthwhile to maintain The List for the sole
purpose of zombifying my votes, and is willing to publish The List
weekly and encourage its use, I'd pay a salary of the right to spend
some of my notes
25 matches
Mail list logo
