On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2008, at 5:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Sgeo wrote:
>>> What was the point of the first change? Unsuccessful fountain attempt?
>>> Also,
>>> how did those proposals pass?
>>
>> An INSANE economic scam let us corner t
On Jun 26, 2008, at 5:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Sgeo wrote:
What was the point of the first change? Unsuccessful fountain
attempt? Also,
how did those proposals pass?
An INSANE economic scam let us corner the market on "vote points"
at AI-1.
More completely, it was a
comex wrote:
> Speaking of which, what happened to the AWJ? There have been no new
> entries on your AWJ page for over a year... and reading summaries of
> old gameplay is pretty fun.
I still have an "AWJ" folder containing all the backlogged messages
that I might conceivably summarize in future
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Sgeo wrote:
> What was the point of the first change? Unsuccessful fountain attempt? Also,
> how did those proposals pass?
An INSANE economic scam let us corner the market on "vote points" at AI-1.
Then we changed an AI-1-definition to let us pass AI-2 stuff with a simple
m
What was the point of the first change? Unsuccessful fountain attempt? Also,
how did those proposals pass?
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reviewing the AWJ:
Speaking of which, what happened to the AWJ? There have been no new
entries on your AWJ page for over a year... and reading summaries of
old gameplay is pretty fun.
Sgeo wrote:
> I understand that nowadays, it's possible for a rule of power 3 to
> elevate itself higher, but was that the case when the Fountain was
> passed? If not, how did it get to be Power 4?
Reviewing the AWJ: Proposals 4327 through 4329 changed the rule
assigning Power to proposals, firs
I understand that nowadays, it's possible for a rule of power 3 to elevate
itself higher, but was that the case when the Fountain was passed? If not,
how did it get to be Power 4?
8 matches
Mail list logo
