Re: DIS: Re: [Expedition] BUS: We haven't had a good scam for a while

Yes, but I prefer requiring second-party support as opposed to lack of second, third, and fourth party opposition. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On May 7, 2017, at 4:21 PM, Alex Smith

DIS: Re: [Expedition] BUS: We haven't had a good scam for a while

On May 7, 2017, at 4:21 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > It strikes me that a mandatory delay on pending might not necessarily > be a bad thing long-term; it'd mean that we could actually submit > proto-proposals to get more discussion, without the risk of a well- > meaning

DIS: Re: [Expedition] BUS: We haven't had a good scam for a while

I’m going to rearrange ais523’s words, a little: On May 1, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > The conclusions I draw from this are that I can't let anyone know how > the scam works until the relevant parts of the ruleset were fixed. I > was originally planning to do