BobTHJ wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 19:04, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Can I supply a hefty bribe from my nonexistent pot of currency to make
sure that the new system is as little like the previous one as
possible?
Ed Murphy wrote:
I recuse Rodlen from CFJs 2582 and 2624.
I recuse allispaul from CFJ 2621 and make em supine. (Has the
amendment passed yet to allow me to recuse em from 2610 for
being inactive?)
Yes.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 01:39, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I transfer a prop from coppro (because a prop given sarcastically
defeats the intended purpose) to BobTHJ (for deal automation).
I have the automation in place to track Airstrip One as I did
previously. If you'd like me to
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I harvest 2631, 2632, 2633, 2634, 2635 (CFJ numbers) for two WRV each,
using X crops as needed. If I am unable to harvest all of these
numbers I instead harvest as many as possible.
Note: the Date: header on this message is
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 08:50, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I harvest 2631, 2632, 2633, 2634, 2635 (CFJ numbers) for two WRV each,
using X crops as needed. If I am unable to harvest all of these
numbers I
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
I go on hold. I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
Ooh, that's a nice little bug. And a sum of unintended consequences
rather than just a straightforward bad card proposal writing.
I
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
== Equity Case 2623 ==
comex - who (dubiously) counts as the CotC when performing
Justiciar duties - rotated the bench without intending to
mislead others as to
2009/7/16 Taral tar...@gmail.com:
By the initiator's own admission, e did not envision anything by the
contract. I proto-judge {The parties to (2008-11-22-ehird) SHALL act
to terminate it ASAP.}
Comments?
That parenthical was a joke; are you seriously suggesting that being
reckless absolves
2009/7/16 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu:
Ooh, that's a nice little bug. And a sum of unintended consequences
rather than just a straightforward bad card proposal writing.
That's not possible; Wooble didn't write it.
Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/7/16 Taral tar...@gmail.com:
By the initiator's own admission, e did not envision anything by the
contract. I proto-judge {The parties to (2008-11-22-ehird) SHALL act
to terminate it ASAP.}
Comments?
That parenthical was a joke; are you seriously suggesting that
G. wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
I go on hold. I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
Ooh, that's a nice little bug. And a sum of unintended consequences
rather than just a straightforward bad card proposal
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
G. wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
I go on hold. I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
Ooh, that's a nice little bug. And a sum of unintended consequences
rather than just
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
For each proposal currently in the Proposal Pool, I intend, without 3
objections, to distribute it.
I object. Every person is allowed one free by announcement per week
right now. That should be plenty fast. -G.
It would be if
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
For each proposal currently in the Proposal Pool, I intend, without 3
objections, to distribute it.
I object to all of these. I nominate myself as Promotor, but will
drop out in favor of any
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not anti-Distributability, I'm
anti-the-lull-in-distribution-indirectly-caused-by-cards-through-no-fault-in-the-proposal's-design.
Maybe the proposals in the pool just aren't that good.
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
For each proposal currently in the Proposal Pool, I intend, without 3
objections, to distribute it.
I object. Every person is allowed one free by announcement per week
right now. That should be
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 09:05, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
Minister without Portfolio: c.
Majority Leader: BobTHJ
Cabinet Secretary: Murphy
Chief Whip: Wooble
Justiciar: ais523
Admiral of the Navy: Taral
I go on hold. I
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 13:28, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 09:05, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
Minister without Portfolio: c.
Majority Leader: BobTHJ
Cabinet Secretary: Murphy
Chief Whip: Wooble
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
Since the Coda proposal defined a new list, members were only added to
the list at the time the proposal was adopted. As a result here is the
list of succession (in order of most recent champion to least recent):
First, we're a few hours away from
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The issue indeed is CFJ-worthy. I wondered this exact question at the time
I published the card holder list, and can see arguments both ways, in that
the list of the last 5 champions certainly arbitrarily existed as a
platonic entity (to which people
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
I believe that would make coppro the speaker as of the adoption of the
cards proposal...
HALT. *Within* the proposal, proposal cards were created *before* the
Speakership was redefined. So the card creation was in relation to the
*old* speaker. At
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Elliott
Hirdpenguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
That parenthical was a joke; are you seriously suggesting that being
reckless absolves us of the obligations?
In an Equitable sense, I believe it actually does. If you both entered
into the contract without any
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 13:48, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The issue indeed is CFJ-worthy. I wondered this exact question at the time
I published the card holder list, and can see arguments both ways, in that
the list of the last 5
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taraltar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
seems fairly unambiguous to me as a request to set power to 2.
I support. More common sense
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taraltar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
seems fairly unambiguous to me
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 19:18 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
2009/7/16 Taral tar...@gmail.com:
By the initiator's own admission, e did not envision anything by the
contract. I proto-judge {The parties to (2008-11-22-ehird) SHALL act
to terminate it ASAP.}
Comments?
That parenthical was a
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taraltar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
seems fairly
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:46, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
AI is a term defined and used in many places in the rules. There is no
qway to say that setting a rule's AI is unambiguously setting a rule's
power. My interpretation would be that it simply sets its AI. The
alternative
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 14:48 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:46, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
AI is a term defined and used in many places in the rules. There is no
qway to say that setting a rule's AI is unambiguously setting a rule's
power. My interpretation would
coppro wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taraltar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taraltar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hickspidge...@gmail.com wrote:
I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
Tiger - July 6
c. - July 6 (and previously on Jun 24)
Wooble - July 6
ais523 - July 6 (twice)
coppro - June 24
Ah, but here's the thing. Wooble has been on the last 5 list continuously
since... well, for a while. So e was added to that list a long
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
Tiger - July 6
c. - July 6 (and previously on Jun 24)
Wooble - July 6
ais523 - July 6 (twice)
coppro - June 24
Ah, but here's the thing. Wooble has been on the last 5 list continuously
since... well, for a while. So e was added
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
So both eir recent governments failed, correct?
Ah yes, just checked; any speaker activity e tried after e went on hold
and came back would have failed.
I'll try to assemble a full list of succession history tomorrow to
confirm the
2009/7/16 Taral tar...@gmail.com:
In an Equitable sense, I believe it actually does. If you both entered
into the contract without any intention that it have any effect on
you, it may not even be a contract.
Oh, we knew it'd have effects; we just didn't care because we were
busy giggling about
Roger Hicks wrote:
All activity related to cards since their inception is available for
perusal at my web-interface: http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx
It is still rather rough at the moment. Changes to account for ehird's
suggestions as well as a text-only version for recordkeepor
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
So both eir recent governments failed, correct?
The Major Arcana rule was never created, so yes either way.
Here is my unofficial list of office priorities. If anyone has any
objections, please list them very specifically. The intent is to allow
BobTHJ and myself to assign deals as appropriate for these so that we
can get Cards into the intended state. I've also included II and some
notes on the
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
So both eir recent governments failed, correct?
The Major Arcana rule was never created, so yes either way.
Why don't you actually read the proposal? They were platonically
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I agree with c. here; rule changes have a special standard and absolute
and precise specification is required. I screwed up. -G.
On my part, I apologize that I have to leave in the middle of what
looks like some
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 19:50, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
All activity related to cards since their inception is available for
perusal at my web-interface: http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx
It is still rather rough at the moment. Changes to account for ehird's
[BobTHJ and coppro, your opinion on this sequence and logic is very welcome]
[Also, this is a little odd at bootup, but I think more normal afterwards]
The list of champion awards since March 1 (eldest to youngest) is as follows:
1. ais523
2. G.
3. OscarMeyr
4. ais523
5. root
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 19:33, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows:
I CFJ on: {{c. is Justiciar.}}
Gratuitous: When Wooble went on hold, e ceased to be on the List of
Succession. When e came
Kerim Aydin wrote:
[BobTHJ and coppro, your opinion on this sequence and logic is very welcome]
[Also, this is a little odd at bootup, but I think more normal afterwards]
The list of champion awards since March 1 (eldest to youngest) is as follows:
1. ais523
2. G.
3.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:16 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
Starting tomorrow I will be unable to send or receive messages for two
weeks. Accordingly, I go on hold. After publishing this week's SLR
I'll resign Rulekeepor; if
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Sgeosgeos...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:16 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM, comexcom...@gmail.com wrote:
Starting tomorrow I will be unable to send or receive messages for two
weeks. Accordingly, I go on hold.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 20:09, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is my unofficial list of office priorities. If anyone has any
objections, please list them very specifically. The intent is to allow
BobTHJ and myself to assign deals as appropriate for these so that we
can get Cards into
Roger Hicks wrote:
If you give me 24 hours I'll have an interface (if you prefer)
available for your use to deal cards that will integrate with my
recordkeeping. I also noticed that players who did not appear on the
Conductor report (because they had no notes) never got their 2 initial
deals
48 matches
Mail list logo
