On 4 Dec 2008, at 02:09, Ed Murphy wrote:
You may have caused VPs to cease to be an asset (because they no
longer
existed solely due to one document defining them), and I'm not sure
what
that would do to the regulation of VP-related actions (in either
direction). Let a judge sort it out, I
ehird wrote:
> On 04/12/2008, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ehird wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Dec 2008, at 22:28, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>>
I think the list of parties here is up to date:
http://agora-notary.wikidot.com/the-werewolves-of-nomic-crossing
though the text does not yet ref
On 04/12/2008, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ehird wrote:
>
>> On 3 Dec 2008, at 22:28, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> I think the list of parties here is up to date:
>>> http://agora-notary.wikidot.com/the-werewolves-of-nomic-crossing
>>> though the text does not yet reflect changes made in No
ehird wrote:
> On 3 Dec 2008, at 22:28, Ed Murphy wrote:
>
>> I think the list of parties here is up to date:
>> http://agora-notary.wikidot.com/the-werewolves-of-nomic-crossing
>> though the text does not yet reflect changes made in November.
>
> http://agora-notary.wikidot.com/vote-market
>
Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 14:25, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Caller's arguments: If the awards are treated as three ordered
>> actions, then ais523 and Pavitra got 20 points each (VALID but
>> ILLEGAL, they should have only gotten 18 each) and comex got
>> nothing (I
On 3 Dec 2008, at 22:28, Ed Murphy wrote:
I think the list of parties here is up to date:
http://agora-notary.wikidot.com/the-werewolves-of-nomic-crossing
though the text does not yet reflect changes made in November.
http://agora-notary.wikidot.com/vote-market
CoE: I am not a party to the
comex wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Caller's arguments: If the awards are treated as three ordered
>> actions, then ais523 and Pavitra got 20 points each (VALID but
>> ILLEGAL, they should have only gotten 18 each) and comex got
>> nothing (INVAL
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 14:25, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Caller's arguments: If the awards are treated as three ordered
> actions, then ais523 and Pavitra got 20 points each (VALID but
> ILLEGAL, they should have only gotten 18 each) and comex got
> nothing (INVALID). If they are trea
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Caller's arguments: If the awards are treated as three ordered
> actions, then ais523 and Pavitra got 20 points each (VALID but
> ILLEGAL, they should have only gotten 18 each) and comex got
> nothing (INVALID). If they are tr
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can only invest 2 points per week, I think.
The recent changes (not Notary-recordkept) say you can invest up to
the amount the contract CAN revoke, and limits its own revoking power
to 5 points. I don't believe it's further
On Sunday 30 November 2008 02:50:59 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Alexander Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I PRS-invest 5 points.
>
> me too.
You can only invest 2 points per week, I think.
On 30 Nov 2008, at 16:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
ais523 wrote:
ehird wrote:
I vote for myself because I am the Werewolf.
Well, either you're crazy, or you're correct.
I vote for ehird in the Werewolves contest.
ehird, Pavitra, and ais523 are voting for ehird. ehird is
lynched; e was indeed a we
12 matches
Mail list logo
