On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> There's
> a scam win by points which is still subject to CFJ (CFJ 2213, you're
> assigned to it btw) too.
Oh, you lose. ;P.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suggest you cut down the max point limits on contests
Wasn't part of it that we were in Overtime?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 13:22 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I suggest you cut down the max point limits on contests, probably the
> > easiest way. The problem is that until a while back, nobody had won by
> > points for ages, and all the contests doubled or qua
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That doesn't fix the fact that the "scams" I'm talking about are from
> manipulating the contracts themselves, not from "within-legitimate
> contest" points awards. For the latter, I don't begrudge any wins
> certainly. Oh d
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> I suggest you cut down the max point limits on contests, probably the
> easiest way. The problem is that until a while back, nobody had won by
> points for ages, and all the contests doubled or quadrupled their
> scoring, so points are plentiful nowadays. Fo
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> I think what actually happened is that wins by points became a lot more
> common when I started trying for them; presumably, they would have
> become a lot more common if someone else had started trying for them,
> too.
I think after all this time it's not
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Winning is too easy right now. It's boring (again IMO).
Temporary setback. Patience is advised. This game has been running for
a lng time.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further troubl
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 13:09 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Winning is too easy right now. It's boring (again IMO).
> >
> > Temporary setback. Patience is advised. This game has been runni
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Winning is too easy right now. It's boring (again IMO).
>
> Temporary setback. Patience is advised. This game has been running for
> a lng time.
Oh I know, but it's run a long time d
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:45 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It's 1000 points per week...
> >
> > So points reset every week until it's fixed by a proposal. Problem?
>
> Not really. (unless
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> R2124 makes non-first-class players incapable of giving/expressing
>> support. Strangely enough, they can still perform the action, they
>> just can't be supporters of it. -Goethe
>
> There may be cases when non-first-class players need to be able to
> per
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's 1000 points per week...
>
> So points reset every week until it's fixed by a proposal. Problem?
Not really. (unless you're doing all that trading, massive devaluation?)
but we might a
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
>> Upon further reflection, I don't think any of these interpretations
>> fixes anything. The default is "with N first-class player supports".
>> This is "with N Senator supports". Still allo
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There is no more an ambiguity in meaning here than there is when
>> somebody announces "I go on hold" as opposed to "I perform the action
>> 'to go on old'".
>
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
> Upon further reflection, I don't think any of these interpretations
> fixes anything. The default is "with N first-class player supports".
> This is "with N Senator supports". Still allows second-class support.
R2124 makes non-first-class players incapable of gi
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's 1000 points per week...
So points reset every week until it's fixed by a proposal. Problem?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> As for the rules, the rules are the rules, and less flexible than
> contracts.
And this is in those Rules:
(1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of
a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I intend, with 4 supporting senators, to end these filibusters.
>
> Eh, why not? It's just points. I support all of these intents.
It's 1000 points per week.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no more an ambiguity in meaning here than there is when
> somebody announces "I go on hold" as opposed to "I perform the action
> 'to go on old'".
Upon further reflection, I don't think any of these interpretations
fi
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, the fact it says "with 2 supporting Senators" not "with
> 2 Senate Support" is further evidence that it works that way; "senate
> Support" would have been a much more sensible wording.
"A difference in ... grammar ... is
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > My point is: the filibuster rule is not a dependent action, according to
> > rule 1728. Therefore, if it works at all, it works due to the ordinary
> > English meaning of what it says. "with 2 supporti
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My point is: the filibuster rule is not a dependent action, according to
> rule 1728. Therefore, if it works at all, it works due to the ordinary
> English meaning of what it says. "with 2 supporting Senators" is with 2
> supp
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> My point is: the filibuster rule is not a dependent action, according to
> rule 1728. Therefore, if it works at all, it works due to the ordinary
> English meaning of what it says. "with 2 supporting Senators" is with 2
> supporting Senators, no firstclassne
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> And with necessary support, I filibuster 5842-5941.
>> >>
>> > I intend, with 4 supporting sen
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 19:44 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:40 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:40 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> And with necessary support, I fili
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> And with necessary support, I filibuster 5842-5941.
> >>
> > I intend, with 4 supporting senators, to end these filibusters.
>
> I post the following Sell Ticket:
>
>
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I support. With two support, I call an Emergency Session.
>>
>> I intend to filibuster proposals 5842-5941 with two support.
>
> I object.
> The Emergency Rule exists to prevent Invasion;
>
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:28 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I support. With two support, I call an Emergency Session.
>>
>> I intend to filibuster proposals 5842-5941 with two support.
>
> I object.
> The Emergency Rul
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I support. With two support, I call an Emergency Session.
>
> I intend to filibuster proposals 5842-5941 with two support.
I object.
The Emergency Rule exists to prevent Invasion;
but we are not being invaded.
Merely minorly
30 matches
Mail list logo
