coppro wrote:
On 01/30/2010 09:04 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
If a player's most recent deregistration was within the past
four weeks, and was not via a mechanism not explicitly described
by the rules as allowing rapid return, then e CAN re-register
without N objections
On 01/31/2010 09:58 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
four weeks, and was not via a mechanism explicitly described
This comma is wrong and makes the rule read funny.
-coppro
On 30 January 2010 07:59, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
6617 0 3.0 G.* Green Fix repetition
6618 0 2.0 G. Green Fix dangling reference
6619 0 3.0 G. Green Encourage dependent disclosure
6620 0 2.0 G.
On 01/31/2010 01:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
In that case I pay the fee to veto it once again. It will just raise
the AI one higher, right?
Can't do that either.
-coppro
On 31 January 2010 21:20, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/31/2010 01:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
In that case I pay the fee to veto it once again. It will just raise
the AI one higher, right?
Can't do that either.
-coppro
I would really need a read the ruleset week soon...
--
On 01/31/2010 01:24 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
On 31 January 2010 21:20, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/31/2010 01:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
In that case I pay the fee to veto it once again. It will just raise
the AI one higher, right?
Can't do that either.
-coppro
I would
On 31 January 2010 21:30, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/31/2010 01:24 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
On 31 January 2010 21:20, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/31/2010 01:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
In that case I pay the fee to veto it once again. It will just raise
the
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
In that case I pay the fee to veto it once again. It will just raise
the AI one higher, right?
you can't veto it because it's no longer ordinary
--
-c.
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/30/2010 11:06 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment. Judge Yally failed
to consider the long-standing precedent (see, for instance, CFJ 2120) of
an obligation implying a mechanism.
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2010 21:09, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
On 31 January 2010 21:05, Jonatan Kilhamnjonatan.kilh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 31 January 2010 21:01,
On 01/31/2010 02:03 PM, comex wrote:
I pay 3 ergs to initiate an election for Herald. The current one
hasn't published a report for over two months.
I nominate myself for Herald.
Both fail. There is currently an ongoing Herald election whose
nomination period is over.
-coppro
On 01/31/2010 02:09 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 01/31/2010 02:03 PM, comex wrote:
I pay 3 ergs to initiate an election for Herald. The current one
hasn't published a report for over two months.
I nominate myself for Herald.
Both fail. There is currently an ongoing Herald election whose
On 01/31/2010 01:55 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
OFFICES
CoE: There exists an Ambassador office and it is held by me.
Accepted.
-coppro
On 01/31/2010 01:57 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
Another CoE: The Interest Index of the PSM office is 2.
Also accepted.
-coppro
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
This message serves to resolve the election for the holder of the
office of Herald. G. is the only eligible candidate; e
remains Herald.
-coppro
When was this election initiated?
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
When was this election initiated?
Six days ago:
I play No Confidence, indicating Herald.
Nobody responded.
--
-c.
I would request that the Assessor resolve proposals this week as soon as
possible (in the non-Agoran sense of the term) after their voting
periods end so that we Agorans can read the new Ruleset this week.
-coppro
On 01/31/2010 10:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Voting results for Proposals 6607 - 6614:
6607 6608 6609 6610 6611 6612 6613 6614
G. 4A4F4F
Yay for apathy!
I vote FOR 6607, 6611, 6614.
I vote AGAINST 6612, 6613.
-G.
It wasn't apathy, actually, it was
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
It wasn't apathy, actually, it was Rests that did it.
I was just looking back and realizing that actually.
Pretty fiendish of me, cleverly not-publishing reports to gain
enough rests to stop your evil plot. :P
Tiger wrote:
You cannot raise your voting limit on it; it is Democratic.
In that case I pay the fee to veto it once again. It will just raise
the AI one higher, right?
You can't veto a democratic proposal.
20 matches
Mail list logo
