On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:15 AM, omd wrote:
>> 7782+ the Warrigal 3.0 Power Always Controls Mutability
> AGAINST - this would prevent proposals from modifying Power>3 rules,
> because Rule 106 is Power 3
How would it do that? Under this proposal, just like right now, Rule
2140 "Power Controls
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:15 AM, omd wrote:
> >> 7782+ the Warrigal 3.0 Power Always Controls Mutability
> > AGAINST - this would prevent proposals from modifying Power>3 rules,
> > because Rule 106 is Power 3
>
> How would it do that?
Nev
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, 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 Ag
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Kerim Aydin 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 defense card).
>
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 Rib
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> To this end, the current precedent of "switches" is: if a move would
> put part of the game into an indeterminate fate, the move fails. In
> th
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Ørjan Johansen 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
> depends on th
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 1 Aug 2015, Tanner Swett wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > To this end, the current precedent of "switches" is: if a move would
> > put part of the gam
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Sean Hunt wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Ørjan Johansen 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 knif
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Sean Hunt wrote:
Proposal: AI Fix (AI=3)
{{{
Amend the first paragraph of Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption
Indices) to read:
Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran
decisions and proposals, whose value is an integral
multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9, de
I vote against. This sounds like an evil plan for omd to win.
> On Aug 3, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Sprocklem 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
>> decision,
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I vote NO on this Mammon Machine proposal.
>
> (Initially I thought there was some scam which would allow the
> proposal to pass as long as it has at least 0.2 times as many FOR
> votes as AGAINST votes. Alas.)
This might be one to let fail quorum.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Well my goodness, hi.CFJ: Quazie is a player.
Arguments: I don't see any reason why "I attempt to leave" would be ineffective.
14 matches
Mail list logo
