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
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 Rule exists to
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;
but we are
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:
* Cost: 15 VP
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 filibuster
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 PROTECTED]
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 senators, to end
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 firstclassness
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
supporting
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 supporting
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, 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
fixes
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, 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 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, 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
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'.
Upon further
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 allows
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 as well
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
perform
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 you're doing
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 due to
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 running for
a
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 trouble I
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 the
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.
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 don't I
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
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, 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.
30 matches
Mail list logo
