On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Quazie wrote:
> The last card game had open hands and worked well I think. I like the idea
> of random assets that you gain sparsely that have the power to do various
> things.
I've been playing a lot of Innovation lately:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgam
The last card game was an unmitigated disaster; see "DIS: What is
wrong with you all?", July 2009.
On Apr 17, 2011, at 19:21, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Quazie wrote:
>> I certainly haven't been around for a while, but I believe it could be
>> fun to reserect a card subgame. I'd love to take a quick straw poll
>> to see if anyone else would be intersted in suc
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Quazie wrote:
> I certainly haven't been around for a while, but I believe it could be
> fun to reserect a card subgame. I'd love to take a quick straw poll
> to see if anyone else would be intersted in such an experience.
The thing about card games is that nomic
On 18 April 2011 03:06, Quazie wrote:
> replace candidate with first-class candidate and i think its right.
>
> The president is much harder to get to vote.
Good. It'd be a terrible recordkeeper.
(But good point, it should default to voting for that candidate if
they don't vote themselves.)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Proto: {A vote for a candidate is actually a vote to endorse that
> candidate, unless cast by the candidate emself.}
>
> No point in forcing people into office if they'll just resign, and if
> a candidate thinks another person is a better fit,
Proto: {A vote for a candidate is actually a vote to endorse that
candidate, unless cast by the candidate emself.}
No point in forcing people into office if they'll just resign, and if
a candidate thinks another person is a better fit, then it seems
logical to redirect votes for them to that candi
Quazie wrote:
> Do arguments presented to discussion have to be included in a cfj's
> arguments?
The rules about arguments are limited to:
* 2205, limited to
- initiator when initiating
- (criminal cases) defendant during pre-trial
- (equity cases) parties during pre-trial (I
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011, Charles Walker wrote:
> For the record, I don't think that this sets the precedent which
> Quazie and G. are saying it does as the requirements for registering
> are deliberately more lenient than the requirements for any other
> action. A state verb would most likely fail to
It was retracted.
On 17 April 2011 01:57, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Quazie wrote:
>> There is a meta question involved with CFJ 2991, mostly are state
>> verbs able to be used in place of action verbs ('I am a player' vs 'I
>> become a player') - it seems to me that by CFJ 2991 being judged true
>>
On 17 April 2011 21:20, Charles Walker wrote:
> --
> Scheduled with Time Cave (http://www.timecave.com)
>
> Subscribe for $12/year to eliminate these short "message tags" and the
> 2-message-per-day limit. You can subscribe at the following URL:
>
> http://www.timecave.com/subscribe
Ugh.
12 matches
Mail list logo
