Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2696
=== CFJ 2696 (Interest Index = 0)
ais523 successfully amended Points Party in the message quoted
in evidence.
=
comex wrote:
If the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active
player to distribute a Proposal, then any player may do so
Without 3 Objections.
For any undistributable proposal, the rules don't permit at least one
current active player to distribute it, so any p
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:03 PM, comex wrote:
>> For each Undistributable proposal currently in the Proposal Pool, I
>> intend, without three objections, to distribute it, as permitted by
>> Rule 106.
> Won't work; all players can deputize to di
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Specifically, R2228 does not itself prevent the transference of Rests
> - it merely defines them as fixed. Therefore, the default case in Rule
> 2166 applies, but is subsequently overruled by the subsequent
> sentence. However, the third paragrap
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:07 PM, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>> I object.
>
> I intend, without objection, to transfer 24 Rests from the L&F to myself.
>
> Note: I doubt it has 24 Rests, see CFJ 2679
Actually, based on 2679 and a slight difference in
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:03 PM, comex wrote:
> For each Undistributable proposal currently in the Proposal Pool, I
> intend, without three objections, to distribute it, as permitted by
> Rule 106.
>
> --
> -c.
>
Won't work; all players can deputize to distribute any and all
Distributable proposa
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 13:17 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> > ais523 500
>> > *coppro 349
>>
>> CoE: You recorded ais523 as having deposited my Government Ball.
>
> I did, I stole it from the bank then sold it b
On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 13:17 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > ais523 500
> > *coppro 349
>
> CoE: You recorded ais523 as having deposited my Government Ball.
I did, I stole it from the bank then sold it back. (Or at least, I did
for some Ball, I forget which o
>> Can't the sentence in the brackets be phrased to be a little more easy
>> to understand?
>
> Ok.
>
> I retract the above proposal and submit the following one:
>
Thanks.
--
-Tiger
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 13:37, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Agreed, e certainly has 0 Distrib-u-Matics at the moment. I'm not
>> waiting on this to finish my updating, I just was hoping to get a
>> clear answer so we knew what was distributable.
>>
>>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> President c., when do you plan to resolve this motion?
> Sometime within one week of the close, I presume, which is eir window.
As Walker probably guessed, I completely forgot about it.
--
-c.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Agreed, e certainly has 0 Distrib-u-Matics at the moment. I'm not
> waiting on this to finish my updating, I just was hoping to get a
> clear answer so we knew what was distributable.
>
> BobTHJ
>
Now that I think of it, if the Pool had more
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I initiate a Motion To Effect, specifying the following Rate List:
>>
>> Distrib-u-Matic: 55
>>
>> The eligible voters for this Motion are the parties to this contract, the
>> voting per
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I initiate a Motion To Effect, specifying the following Rate List:
>
> Distrib-u-Matic: 55
>
> The eligible voters for this Motion are the parties to this contract, the
> voting period lasts for 72 hours, and the President is the Vote Collector.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 13:20, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:40 AM, ais523 wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 11:18 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>>> I lost track of the gamestate.was ais523's attempt to
>>> destroy/transfer Murphy's Distrib-u-Matics successful? (and could
>>> someon
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:40 AM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 11:18 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> I lost track of the gamestate.was ais523's attempt to
>> destroy/transfer Murphy's Distrib-u-Matics successful? (and could
>> someone point me to the CFJ this hinged upon?) I'm busily wor
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 15:28, Ed Murphy wrote:
> If I have at least as many Distrib-u-Matics as undistributable proposals
> in the pool, then for each such proposal, I play Distrib-u-Matic to make
> it distributable.
>
H. Former-Promotor Wooble, any chance you could let me know how many
undistrib
On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 11:18 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I lost track of the gamestate.was ais523's attempt to
> destroy/transfer Murphy's Distrib-u-Matics successful? (and could
> someone point me to the CFJ this hinged upon?) I'm busily working to
> bring my recordkeeping up to date so I can i
I lost track of the gamestate.was ais523's attempt to
destroy/transfer Murphy's Distrib-u-Matics successful? (and could
someone point me to the CFJ this hinged upon?) I'm busily working to
bring my recordkeeping up to date so I can issue reports.
BobTHJ
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:00, Ed Murphy wrote:
> (If card recordkeeping isn't caught up soon, then I suggest a deputy
> Promotor distribute everything and plead for DISCHARGE if e thereby
> breaks Rule 1607. Better that than a stagnant pool.)
>
I'm back in the office today and will be working on
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 17:26, Sgeo wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 6:15 PM, comex wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> It's been pointed out to me that I'm violating the rules by not
>>> reporting on the Distributability of proposals that aren't in the pool
>>>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:58 AM, ais523 wrote:
> This is a hugely problematic opinion. I don't think it's acceptable to
> break the rules of any game that you play voluntarily unless you want to
> quit the game permanently, criminal courts or not. As a result, what
> you're doing here effectively
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Note that I don't feel this way about purely contractual obligations.
What about the other special case I mentioned, a non-player playing
through a shell partnership? In both cases, the person is playing and
can probably defend himself; and d
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
2009/10/18 Sean Hunt :
This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to decide the
holder of the office of Anarchist. For this Decision, the
eligible voters are all the active first-class players, each with a
voting limit of one. The Intergalactic Associate Director
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 11:43 -0400, comex wrote:
> After forfeiting, there is nothing that suggests that the player can
> ever return to the game after losing, so it doesn't make much of a
> difference when it comes to, say, point penalties. Both the rule and
> my amendment seem to prevent penaltie
25 matches
Mail list logo
