Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
I intend, without objection from any objection from any party to the
FRC and with its contesmaster's support, to amend the FRC by replacing
"max" with "min".
*looks* Oh, crap. I support.
By the way, I believe this means you own me 2 y-points.
-coppro
Trying to contract-define "Rules" is probably going to fail rather
spectacularly.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> Turn Tokens are singleton assets, named by the naming scheme "TT1",
> "TT2" and so on. If a Turn Token is transferred to or created in the
> possession of a player who already owns another Turn Token, it is
> instead transferred to the cont
2009/10/27 Jonatan Kilhamn :
> Proto, I don't agree to this yet:
>
Still a proto:
I. Contract stuff
The name of this contract is Agora Fluxx.
Anyone may join or leave this contract by announcement. Any party may
amend this contract without party objection. The rest of the contract
notwithsta
2009/10/27 Sean Hunt :
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> The name of this contract is Agora Fluxx.
>> Anyone may join or leave this contract by announcement. Any party may
>> amend this contract without party objection. The rest of the contract
>> notwithstanding, memb
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> The name of this contract is Agora Fluxx.
> Anyone may join or leave this contract by announcement. Any party may
> amend this contract without party objection. The rest of the contract
> notwithstanding, members of this contract CANNOT be
Proto, I don't agree to this yet:
I. Contract stuff (or You know how most of this works)
The name of this contract is Agora Fluxx.
Anyone may join or leave this contract by announcement. Any party may
amend this contract without party objection. The rest of the contract
notwithstanding, membe
2009/10/27 Sean Hunt :
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> The whole thing failed, I didn't include the options or the identity
>> of the vote collector.
>>
>>
>
> I'm making this public.
>
I didn't even realise it was private, thanks.
--
-Tiger
2009/10/27 Sean Hunt :
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> This message serves to initiate, and assign an ID number to, the
>> decision of whether to adopt the following proposal:
>>
>> NUM II AI SUBMITTER CHAMBER TITLE
>> 6546 1 1.0 c.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 15:35, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:45 - The office of Ambassador becomes assumable
>
> I don't believe this is in the right report.
>
Yes. A flaw in my design. Since an office becoming assumable is a
triggered response to another action (one which causes an offi
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> This message serves to initiate, and assign an ID number to, the
> decision of whether to adopt the following proposal:
>
> NUM II AI SUBMITTER CHAMBER TITLE
> 6546 1 1.0 c. Green Pragmatize strict order
> Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:45 - The office of Ambassador becomes assumable
I don't believe this is in the right report.
-coppro
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 14:02, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:58, Sean Hunt wrote:
coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14
>>>
>>> CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, p
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:58, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14
>>
>> CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, platonic.
>>
> I'm not understanding the nature of your
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:58, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14
>
> CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, platonic.
>
I'm not understanding the nature of your CoE, can you clarify?
BobTHJ
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:46, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:04, Sean Hunt wrote:
I harvest 2719, 2720, 2721, 2722, 2723, 2724, 2725, 2726 and 2727 for 18
WRV.
>>>
>>> In ascending order, I harvest as many of thes
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:04, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> I harvest 2719, 2720, 2721, 2722, 2723, 2724, 2725, 2726 and 2727 for 18
>>> WRV.
>>
>> In ascending order, I harvest as many of these as I can for 2 WRV each
>> (note that I already harves
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:04, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I harvest 2719, 2720, 2721, 2722, 2723, 2724, 2725, 2726 and 2727 for 18 WRV.
>
> In ascending order, I harvest as many of these as I can for 2 WRV each
> (note that I already harvested 2726 and 2727).
>
(4433) Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04 - coppro harv
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> Yes, barring the removal of proposals already made distributable.
> Sorry for bothering you, but is there a way to access this database
> that would count as reasonable effort?
Well, probably not without effort on my part that would be
un
Tiger wrote:
> 2009/10/27 Geoffrey Spear :
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
>> wrote:
>>> Barring anyone removing a proposal already made distributable, this
>>> should make a complete list, right?
>> No, it doesn't include Distributable proposals that were removed from the
>>
2009/10/27 Geoffrey Spear :
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> wrote:
>> Barring anyone removing a proposal already made distributable, this
>> should make a complete list, right?
>
> No, it doesn't include Distributable proposals that were removed from the
> pool.
>
Yes, barrin
I would have used an array: array('Green'=>$green,'Red'=>
$red,'Purple'=>$purple)[$chamber]
(maybe needs two statements in PHP)
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2009, at 10:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Dammit, and I just finished debugging the vote-recording scrip
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
wrote:
> Barring anyone removing a proposal already made distributable, this
> should make a complete list, right?
No, it doesn't include Distributable proposals that were removed from the pool.
2009/10/27 Geoffrey Spear :
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> That was your call. To be guilty, "the Accused could have reasonably avoided
>> committing the breach without committing a different breach of equal or
>> greater severity". It would be unreasonable for the Promotor
24 matches
Mail list logo
