On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> 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
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
> > 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 te
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> I disagree with that last point. I was a candidate in the recent
>> Scorekeepor election, and at the moment, I don't know if I won or not.
>> It would have been better for the game (and my reputation
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Tanner Swett wrote:
> >> I disagree with that last point. I was a candidate in the recent
> >> Scorekeepor election, and at the moment, I don't know if I won or not.
> >> It w
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 16:13 -0400, omd wrote:
> (a) a list of such intents could easily be found by performing a
> search for "intend" (all but two players use either Gmail or Yahoo,
> which are searchable, and I trust that G. and Murphy have some method
> to search their email);
False assumption h
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 16:13 -0400, omd wrote:
> > (a) a list of such intents could easily be found by performing a
> > search for "intend" (all but two players use either Gmail or Yahoo,
> > which are searchable, and I trust that G. and Murphy have some me
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 22:23, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
> [Trivia: This is the 21st case in the database with two
> appeals. Only one, CFJ 1966, has had three.]
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3004b
>
> Appeal 3004b =
Yally wrote:
> Note that because appeal a was judged AFFIRM, the sentence of TIME OUT
> has already been reassigned. Thus, judging this case AFFIRM would be
> violating my R101 right to not be punished more than once for a single
> action as I would receive two TIME OUT sentences from the same cas
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 23:39, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Yally wrote:
>
>> Note that because appeal a was judged AFFIRM, the sentence of TIME OUT
>> has already been reassigned. Thus, judging this case AFFIRM would be
>> violating my R101 right to not be punished more than once for a single
>> action as
9 matches
Mail list logo
