On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
The Registrar's report should self-ratify IMO, as it's probably the
report in which a mistake can cause the largest chaos to the gamestate.
Well given that the July 4 report is
2008/7/18 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Because avpx changed eir nickname to ehird. If e's changed it back,
or it was determined to have failed, I missed that.
-root
e changed it back and it probably failed
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/18 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Because avpx changed eir nickname to ehird. If e's changed it back,
or it was determined to have failed, I missed that.
-root
e changed it back and it probably failed
I see no
2008/7/18 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I see no reason for it to have failed.
Because I am ehird.
Can you point me to where e
changed it back? I can't find it in my archive.
Dunno, someone said e did.
tusho
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/18 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Because avpx changed eir nickname to ehird. If e's changed it back,
or it was determined to have failed, I missed
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see no reason for it to have failed. Can you point me to where e
changed it back? I can't find it in my archive.
The argument for failure was that ehird still refered to the old
ehird, and thus having avpx named ehird
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see no reason for it to have failed. Can you point me to where e
changed it back? I can't find it in my archive.
The argument for failure was that ehird
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ehird had already changed eir name to tusho at the time and was not a
player in any case. It is not clear whether the precedent from CFJs
1703 and 1361 would still apply in this case.
-root
Which is (i believe) the point of
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ehird had already changed eir name to tusho at the time and was not a
player in any case. It is not clear whether the precedent from CFJs
1703 and 1361 would
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 1 (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
world #1!}
Is there an objective here? (apart from annoyance?)
BobTHJ
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is there an objective here? (apart from annoyance?)
BobTHJ
Consider it a verbose and chaotic version of We should really have a
proposal limit like CFJs.
This'll play havoc with PerlNomic and the AAA too, I think.
tusho
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I submit the following proposal:
Exorcism
AI: 1
II: 0
{
Upon adoption of this proposal each proposal whose title includes the
word Demon which is in the Proposal Pool is removed from the
Proposal Pool without being distributed.
}
BobTHJ
Um,
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I submit the following proposal:
Exorcism
AI: 1
II: 0
{
Upon adoption of this proposal each proposal whose title includes the
word Demon which is in the Proposal Pool is removed
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um, that'll be distributed along with mine.
Not if the Promotor decides for some reason to wait to distribute
yours. I can't image why e might decide to do that, though.
Apparently social barrier doesn't mean anything to
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Elliott Hird
Exorcism
AI: 1
II: 0
This will likely need to be a higher AI.
Side note: looks like the first thing to do for minor arcana is
to start charging for proposal distribution again :(.
-Goethe
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I submit the following proposal:
Exorcism
AI: 1
II: 0
{
Upon adoption of this proposal each proposal whose title includes the
word Demon which is in the Proposal Pool is removed
2008/7/17 Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Elliott Hird
Can't the Promotor distribute the Exorcism one first? But I'm guessing
that before Exorcism is resolved, the Demon stuff will need to be
distributed too?
bingo
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
Um, that'll be distributed along with mine.
Doesn't have to be. Zefram tends to distribute twice a week, but can
legally hold them up to a week, do the cancel one immediately, etc.
Since the AI has to be changed (I think), might want to add a
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't the Promotor distribute the Exorcism one first? But I'm guessing
that before Exorcism is resolved, the Demon stuff will need to be
distributed too?
Nope. The Promotor need only to distribute them by Sun, 27 Jul 2008
23:59
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Elliott Hird
Exorcism
AI: 1
II: 0
This will likely need to be a higher AI.
Why? and what would you recommend?
BobTHJ
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Elliott Hird
Exorcism
AI: 1
II: 0
This will likely need to be a higher AI.
Side note: looks like the first thing to do for minor arcana is
to
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
I withdraw my proposal titled Exorcism. I request that Goethe submit a
suitably similar proposal that would accomplish the intended purpose.
First things first. Where does tusho's playerhood stand with the
fact that OscarMeyr's AGAINST vote was
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 12:36 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote:
I withdraw my proposal titled Exorcism. I request that Goethe submit a
suitably similar proposal that would accomplish the intended purpose.
First things first. Where does tusho's playerhood
tusho wrote:
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 1 (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
world #1!}
[snip]
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 450 (AI=1,II=0):
{Hello, world #450!}
Proto-proto: Amend Rule 2161 (ID Numbers) to allow officers to
assign initially-chaotic ID numbers by
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:14 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
tusho wrote:
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 1 (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
world #1!}
[snip]
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 450 (AI=1,II=0):
{Hello, world #450!}
Proto-proto: Amend Rule 2161 (ID Numbers) to
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
tusho wrote:
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 1 (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
world #1!}
[snip]
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 450 (AI=1,II=0):
{Hello, world #450!}
Proto-proto: Amend Rule 2161 (ID
2008/7/17 ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:14 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
tusho wrote:
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 1 (AI=1,II=0): {Hello,
world #1!}
[snip]
I propose the following proposal, named Demon 450 (AI=1,II=0):
{Hello, world #450!}
Proto-proto:
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 21:55 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
Proto: Limit the amount of proposals a week a user can make.
Duh.
I protoprotoed implementing that with Goethe's new Card system.
--
ais523
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
Proto: Limit the amount of proposals a week a user can make.
It's worth noting that such limits existed from at least prior to 2001
through 2006. Anyone else care to comment on how far back before 2001
they went? Limits were based on currency, cards,
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
Proto: Limit the amount of proposals a week a user can make.
It's worth noting that such limits existed from at least prior to 2001
through 2006. Anyone else care to comment on how
2008/7/17 Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But since you're not a player, none of these are actually proposals.
-zefram
But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Zefram wrote:
(Btw, e was awarded the patent title Infinite Boor
for that, but it's not listed in the herald's report. Was it removed?)
I'd remember that I think, as far as I recall it wasn't in the report when
I was first herald in 2001 or since. -goethe
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Zefram, I'm wondering if the abuse modifies your general Proposals
should be Free stance
Not much. I'm still firmly opposed to requiring payment to submit
proposals or get them distributed, and also opposed to tight rate
limiting and other artificial restrictions. For the
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
Uh, weren't CFJs 2074-2075 raised in time to stop ratification?
I don't think a conspiracy of delaying those CFJs stops ratification,
does it? -Goethe
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 14:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
Uh, weren't CFJs 2074-2075 raised in time to stop ratification?
I don't think a conspiracy of delaying those CFJs stops ratification,
does it? -Goethe
Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
Uh, weren't CFJs 2074-2075 raised in time to stop ratification?
I don't think a conspiracy of delaying those CFJs stops ratification,
does it? -Goethe
The CoE(s) against the results on 5582
ais523 wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 14:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
But if I ratify as a player, they will be.
Uh, weren't CFJs 2074-2075 raised in time to stop ratification?
I don't think a conspiracy of delaying those CFJs stops ratification,
does
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
CFJs don't stop ratification unless they clearly state that they are for
the purpose of stopping ratification. (I was intending to use this to
force through my Disclaimer Scam, but I think it would have failed on
other grounds.)
Well the Registrar's report
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 15:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
CFJs don't stop ratification unless they clearly state that they are for
the purpose of stopping ratification. (I was intending to use this to
force through my Disclaimer Scam, but I think it would have
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
The Registrar's report should self-ratify IMO, as it's probably the
report in which a mistake can cause the largest chaos to the gamestate.
Well given that the July 4 report is self-contradictory (lists ehird's
deregistration as an event, but still has em on
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 15:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
The Registrar's report should self-ratify IMO, as it's probably the
report in which a mistake can cause the largest chaos to the gamestate.
Well given that the July 4 report is self-contradictory
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
Well given that the July 4 report is self-contradictory (lists ehird's
deregistration as an event, but still has em on the player list) it's
probably good that it doesn't right now :). -G.
Wasn't that one ratified by hand?
No I checked, e ratified the June
On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/17 Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is there an objective here? (apart from annoyance?)
BobTHJ
Consider it a verbose and chaotic version of We should really have a
proposal limit like CFJs.
This'll play havoc with PerlNomic and the AAA
43 matches
Mail list logo
