2009/9/2 Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com:
For each of the following, I perform it unless the named player
has a voting limit of at most 3 on the named decision: {
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:25, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Amend Rule 2259 (Hand Limits) by appending this text:
As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, each dealer
of a basic deck SHALL by announcement audit each entity who owns
at least as many cards
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist, naming ehird and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist,
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 15:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist, naming
BobTHJ wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:25, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Amend Rule 2259 (Hand Limits) by appending this text:
As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, each dealer
of a basic deck SHALL by announcement audit each entity who owns
at
Wooble wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist, naming coppro and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play Arm-Twist, naming ehird and the decision on Proposal 6466.
I play
ais523 wrote:
Also, why 6466 anyway? I don't get what's so important about that
proposal.
Consider what happens when a smart-ass Justiciar assigns ID number
99. Just because we haven't had any chaotic ID numbers
yet doesn't mean the concept isn't useful.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
ais523 wrote:
Also, why 6466 anyway? I don't get what's so important about that
proposal.
Consider what happens when a smart-ass Justiciar assigns ID number
99. Just because we haven't had any chaotic ID
Ed Murphy wrote:
I spend a Distrib-u-Matic to make the following proposal distributable.
Proposal: Chaotic fix
I think this works, but it would be nice to be sure. Does the proposal
exist yet when the Distrib-u-Matic is played earlier in the message?
We've generally treated actions within a
coppro wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I wrote:
I play Kill Bill, naming the decision on Proposal 6466.
TTttPF
You realize this undoes all your voting limit playing?
Yes, the point is that much of that voting limit playing was
botched due to Arm-Twist being worded wrong.
10 matches
Mail list logo
