On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 11:01 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Goethe wrote:
>>
>>> By the way ais523, what do you think of the other question, on whether
>>> "MAY with N Support" in general invokes dependent actions thus turning
>>> a MAY into a CAN?
>>
>> Rule 172
On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 11:01 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
> > By the way ais523, what do you think of the other question, on whether
> > "MAY with N Support" in general invokes dependent actions thus turning
> > a MAY into a CAN?
>
> Rule 1728 includes this:
>
> A dependent a
Goethe wrote:
> By the way ais523, what do you think of the other question, on whether
> "MAY with N Support" in general invokes dependent actions thus turning
> a MAY into a CAN?
Rule 1728 includes this:
A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise
permitted by
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 08:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> If the only action is "publishing
>> certain information" (and any publication of said information is
>> automatically such a Notice) that's covered by R101; other rul
On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 08:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 3 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > A public message claiming to be a game-defined entity (e.g. a
> > distribution of proposals) is not generally that entity, but must
> > match the circumstances defined for that entity (e.
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> A public message claiming to be a game-defined entity (e.g. a
> distribution of proposals) is not generally that entity, but must
> match the circumstances defined for that entity (e.g. being sent
> by the Promotor).
This would be very ni
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 07:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> CFJ 1768 judged that rules 101 and 478 do not prevent Truthfulness
>>> working, because lying isn't a method of participating in the fora.
>>> Submitting an No
Goethe wrote:
> R101 says you can publish text. It doesn't say anything about what the
> legal effect of doing so can or can't be. For example, you can publish
> all the text of a Proposal Distribution, but it's not a Proposal
> Distribution unless you're the Promotor. Similarly, R101 says yo
On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 07:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > CFJ 1768 judged that rules 101 and 478 do not prevent Truthfulness
> > working, because lying isn't a method of participating in the fora.
> > Submitting an NoV, however, definitely is.
>
> Publishing
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> CFJ 1768 judged that rules 101 and 478 do not prevent Truthfulness
> working, because lying isn't a method of participating in the fora.
> Submitting an NoV, however, definitely is.
Publishing a text of claiming to be an NoV is participating. Whether
or n
On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 17:20 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> >> It's possible to publish an NoV by sending it to a public forum, no
> >> matter what lower-power rules think on the matter. Rules 101 and 478,
> >> both power-3, give us the right of par
On Sat, 2 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 22:32 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> Can someone explain why e doesn't need a lot of support to do this? I
>> don't see how the first one is not a "valid, un-closed NoV published
>> by the same player earlier that week" as per R2230.
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I CFJ on the following sentence. ais523, Murphy, and coppro won the
> game on 02 May, 2009.
Gratuitous arguments: at the time, I was an active first-class player
with no Rests.
Pavitra
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> It's possible to publish an NoV by sending it to a public forum, no
>> matter what lower-power rules think on the matter. Rules 101 and 478,
>> both power-3, give us the right of participation in the fora. And
>> publishing NoVs is certainly
> I nominate Yally for CotC.
I respectfully decline.
On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 22:32 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> Can someone explain why e doesn't need a lot of support to do this? I
> don't see how the first one is not a "valid, un-closed NoV published
> by the same player earlier that week" as per R2230. Though there has
> to be something as surely
2009/5/2 Ed Murphy :
> [Summary: Each active non-scamster gets a bogus Rest, then the
> scamsters take turns being the sole active Rest-free player for
> Win by Solitude, then the bogus Rests are destroyed.]
>
> ais523, comex, and coppro have agreed to a private contract allowing
> me to act on th
On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 09:39 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> [Summary: Each active non-scamster gets a bogus Rest, then the
> scamsters take turns being the sole active Rest-free player for
> Win by Solitude, then the bogus Rests are destroyed.]
Because scams involving the judicial system are often seen
18 matches
Mail list logo
