On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Jonatan
Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/8/7 Geoffrey Spear :
>> I nominate myself as Grand Poobah.
>>
> Me too.
Thank you, but I only need 1 nomination.
2009/8/7 Roger Hicks :
> When considering the same with you, while I believe you have
> performed the office of Grand Poobah in a satisfactory manner it has
> been personally inconvenient to me since you're not using my
> card-drawing engine (which means I have to manually record your
> deals). Aga
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> the MAY is only for transfer, play, or create. NOT create.
Er, what? Surely 'create' is an element of the set {'transfer', 'play',
'create'}.
coppro wrote:
> A very broken system. As the criminal rules are written, you don't even
> need to actually believe you were in the right, it just needs to be
> reasonable for you to have done so. I completely support criminal reform
> (N.B. my reform proposal would not have repaired this error) as
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The thing about this one is that it moved for the win condition and
> included resetting voting power, so was very hard to undo - just creating
> one card as an example would be a reason for DISCHARGE. (I'm not sure
> if the fact that it didn't work should be a mitigating f
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, ais523 wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 13:31 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Also to clarify one other thing: I'm not opposed to officers abusing
>> their powers for a scam, I just think it should (in most cases) lead
>> to a new office holder. Take for instance my bribery attempt
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 13:31 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Also to clarify one other thing: I'm not opposed to officers abusing
> their powers for a scam, I just think it should (in most cases) lead
> to a new office holder. Take for instance my bribery attempt when the
> Grand Poobah and castes were
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 13:20, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I submit that people should consider my past performance of duties in
> all offices, and not just the scam, when chosing to vote in this and
> other ongoing elections for my offices. There is abusable power in the
> Grand Poobah office, but it is cle
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I consider it to be a bug in the rules that a player can be found NOT
> GUILTY if it is at all reasonable for em to have believed e was not
> breaking the rule, even if e did not believe so at the time.
I don't think it's so broken; I think judges not be th
Roger Hicks wrote:
> I think this is especially the case when scamming a power granted to
> you as a result of an office you hold. For the good of the game
> Officers should be overly cautious in exercising any powers granted to
> them for their office as these powers are typically defined to ensur
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> It has been pointed out to me that I misread Rule 2253, thinking it also
>> provided an exception for creating cards, which it does not.
>
> Gratuitous:
> When planning something that is clearly against the spirit of a rule,
> claiming
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 02:48 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I play 3 Absolv-o-matic cards to destroy my three Rests
>
> I was going to hold off on this, but it seems to be a good day for
> scammers, so let's go for it.
>
> I create 33 Local Election cards in my own possession.
>
> R2253 says:
>
>
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 02:48, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I create 33 Local Election cards in my own possession.
>
Notes on recordkeeping: As of the time of initiation for this scam
coppro was owed 4 draws from the Deck of Government (2 for Poobah
weekly salary, and 2 for IADoP weekly salary). E later dealt
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 02:48, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I spend Lobbyist to reduce Murphy's caste.
> I spend Lobbyist to reduce Murphy's caste.
> I spend Lobbyist to reduce Murphy's caste.
> I spend Lobbyist to reduce Murphy's caste.
> I spend Lobbyist to reduce Murphy's caste.
> I spend Lobbyist to reduc
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Heh, I'm guessing that was on purpose... trolled me in anyway. Destroy
> the 33 and I'd be happy with a single penalty :| ...
If so, violates Truthiness for knowingly claiming to decrease caste
with a Lobbyist.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:44, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:32, ais523 wrote:
>>
>> The scam failed, the sort of card coppro created was a different sort of
>> card from what e subsequently attempted to play.
>>
> Huh?
>
Nevermind - I get it.
BobTHJ
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:32, ais523 wrote:
>
> The scam failed, the sort of card coppro created was a different sort of
> card from what e subsequently attempted to play.
>
Huh?
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, ais523 wrote:
>> Even if the scam worked I still think this warrants 33 NOVs (well, as
>> many as can be supported) for violating the SHALL.
>
> The scam failed, the sort of card coppro created was a different sort of
> card from what e subsequently attempted to play.
Heh, I'm
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 10:19 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:15, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > You used this to win the game in a direct breach of trust by performing
> > an officer's duty 33 times as explicitly forbidden. This is worth 33 NoVs
> > and removal from office IMO; it's t
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:15, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> You used this to win the game in a direct breach of trust by performing
> an officer's duty 33 times as explicitly forbidden. This is worth 33 NoVs
> and removal from office IMO; it's the precise purpose of writing the
> rules this way. What do o
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> however the e SHALL only perform these actions as explicitly
> permitted by the Rules. E MAY transfer, play, or destroy cards
> in eir own possession as any other player generally MAY.
No. Creation is specifically outlawed by "e SHALL only"
21 matches
Mail list logo
