On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
To this end, the current precedent of switches is: if a move would
put part of the game into an
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
I was about to quibble with the logic (but not the tally) because given the
unconditional votes listed, the outcome of aranea's vote does not depend on
what omd votes. However because of the quorum knife edge, it actually
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
I was about to quibble with the logic (but not the tally) because given the
unconditional votes listed, the outcome of aranea's vote does not depend on
what omd votes. However because
I vote against. This sounds like an evil plan for omd to win.
On Aug 3, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Sprocklem sprock...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2015-08-03 19:29, omd wrote:
I submit the following proposal, pend it, and specially deputise for
the Promotor to distribute it, thereby expediting it. For this
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Ok, here's what the first paradox was... What's your pseudo-judgement?
The Not Your Turn card would cancel the effect of any card played
in the last 24 hours (meant as a
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Sean Hunt wrote:
To resolve the conditional votes, I observe that
a) aranea's vote does potentially depend on omd's, so I do not
consider it in resolving the conditional
b) therefore, omd's vote resolves to Revised Province of Agora
c) therefore, aranea's vote resolves to
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015, Tanner Swett wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
To this end, the current precedent of switches is: if a
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Tanner Swett wrote:
At the moment, I don't know of any places in the rules where a
low-powered instrument is allowed to mess with a high-powered
instrument. It would be nice if we could go from we don't know of
any to there aren't any.
Well, the whole point of Agora is
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:15 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
7782+ the Warrigal 3.0 Power Always Controls Mutability
AGAINST - this would prevent proposals from modifying Power3 rules,
because Rule 106 is Power 3
How would it do that? Under this proposal, just like right now, Rule
2140
At the moment, I don't know of any places in the rules where a
low-powered instrument is allowed to mess with a high-powered
instrument. It would be nice if we could go from we don't know of
any to there aren't any.
—the Warrigal
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Tanner Swett tannersw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:15 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
7782+ the Warrigal 3.0 Power Always Controls Mutability
AGAINST - this would prevent proposals from modifying Power3 rules,
because Rule 106 is Power 3
11 matches
Mail list logo
