On 25 April 2010 21:07, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Dictatorship Scam (AI=3, II=1, Distributable via fee)
> {{{
> Enact a new rule at power-3:
> coppro CAN, with Notice, cause this Rule to perform one or more
> arbitrary Rule Changes.
> }}}
HELP OH GOD WHAT DO WE DO
coppro wrote:
> On 04/25/2010 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Clout
>>on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at
>>most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning
>>Condition and did not satisfy any
coppro wrote:
> On 04/18/2010 08:41 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> This distribution of proposals and the subsequent assigning of ID
>> numbers initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt proposals
>> 6708-6712. The eligible voters for these proposals are the active
>> players as of this message;
On 04/25/2010 01:39 PM, comex wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Dictatorship
on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at
most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning
Condition
On 04/25/2010 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Clout
on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at
most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning
Condition and did not satisfy any Losing Conditions.
[
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Each player who satisfied the Winning Condition of Dictatorship
> on or before 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 UTC thereby won the game at
> most once, at the first moment at which e satisfied that Winning
> Condition and did not satisfy any Losing Cond
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> It destroys the ribbons, but it doesn't explicitly turn off the
> Winning Condition. R2186(b) does /now/, but only since it was
> fixed last month. But, hmm, there was another proposal that
> deactivated Winning Conditions as a one-off; can som
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Re-reading Rule 2186, I think the second paragraph has to be
> interpreted as "When [it becomes true that] one or more persons...",
> or else the players who satisfied Renaissance would thereafter win
> at *each moment* during which they didn't
8 matches
Mail list logo
