Roger Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:10, Charles Walker
wrote:
coppro wrote:
Charles Walker wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
ais523
Majority Leader
Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5
Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.
They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are somewhat misleading as they imply
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:10, Charles Walker
wrote:
> coppro wrote:
>> Charles Walker wrote:
>>> BobTHJ wrote:
ais523
Majority Leader
Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5
>>>
>>> Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.
>>>
>> They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are somewhat misleadin
coppro wrote:
> Charles Walker wrote:
>> BobTHJ wrote:
>>>
>>> ais523
>>> Majority Leader
>>> Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5
>>
>> Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.
>>
> They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are somewhat misleading as they imply
> that hand limits are on a per-deck basis, which
Charles Walker wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
ais523
Majority Leader
Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5
Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.
They do, however, BobTHJ's reports are somewhat misleading as they imply
that hand limits are on a per-deck basis, which t
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> ais523
> Majority Leader
> Total: 1, Hand Limit: 5
Major Arcana cards do not affect Hand Limits.
--
Charles Walker
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Vlad, Andre, G., BobTHJ, P1-P100 [pending CFJ 2306]
Pretty sure 2306 was judged a long time ago.
--
Taral
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Roger Hicks wrote:
> CHAMPIONSHIP Wooble
> CONTEST Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr
These two win types should be merged; winning by CONTEST is the
unofficial name for winning the old version of a Champion's Contest.
-G.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:37, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> Vlad, Andre, G., BobTHJ, P1-P100 [pending CFJ 2306]
>
> CFJ2306 was judged over 8 months ago. Are we still expecting an appeal?
>
Fixed in draft.
BobTHJ
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Vlad, Andre, G., BobTHJ, P1-P100 [pending CFJ 2306]
CFJ2306 was judged over 8 months ago. Are we still expecting an appeal?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Craig Daniel wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> Guilty conscience? -G.
>>
>
> Not that I remember, but maybe.
>
> Did I? You seem to have a better recall of my last time as an Agoran
> than I do...
Not really... I remember you in association w
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Guilty conscience? -G.
>
Not that I remember, but maybe.
Did I? You seem to have a better recall of my last time as an Agoran
than I do...
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Craig Daniel wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Elliott
> Hird wrote:
>> 2009/6/30 Kerim Aydin :
>>> Proposal 4432 by Maud, AI=1, Ordinary
>>> Invisibilitating
>>>
>>> Be it resolved, that the proposer of an adopted proposal (besides this
>>> proposal) inclu
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Elliott
Hird wrote:
> 2009/6/30 Kerim Aydin :
>> Proposal 4432 by Maud, AI=1, Ordinary
>> Invisibilitating
>>
>> Be it resolved, that the proposer of an adopted proposal (besides this
>> proposal) including provisions that propose changes to parts of the
2009/6/30 Kerim Aydin :
> Proposal 4432 by Maud, AI=1, Ordinary
> Invisibilitating
>
> Be it resolved, that the proposer of an adopted proposal (besides this
> proposal) including provisions that propose changes to parts of the
> gamestate information about which is not subject to pu
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there may
> be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. Unless
> Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins.
It occurs to me that there may have been Man
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:45 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin
>>> wrote:
>>> > However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there
>>> m
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:45 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin
>> wrote:
>> > However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there
>> may
>> > be an error in that only the last Maniac should ha
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:45 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin
>> wrote:
>>> However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there
>> may
>>> be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title.
>>
On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 13:45 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
> > However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there
> may
> > be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title.
> Unless
> > Maniac was somehow made non-un
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> However, since that's defined under "unique" patent titles, there may
> be an error in that only the last Maniac should have the title. Unless
> Maniac was somehow made non-unique prior to the wins.
Good catch. It was listed as unique right u
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
> root and Craig are also credited with the Patent Title; either they
> achieved the condition under 1729/2 as well, or they were awarded the
> Patent Title by proposal, or an error was made years ago (dating back
> to at least 10 Nov 02, the oldest Herald's re
root wrote:
> At the end of the voting period, if no votes were cast FOR an insane
> proposal, its proposer would win and gain the patent title of Maniac.
CoE: The rule awarded either a win, or points, or the Patent Title,
but never more than one at once. Consulting comex's rule history, the
Ag
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Sgeo wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Sgeo wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Historical annotation:
>>>
>>> Why no commentary on December's Historical Rule?
>>
>> Positioning is everything: I
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Sgeo wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Sgeo wrote:
Any Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by publicly
alleging that the Silent Player has a
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Sgeo wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Sgeo wrote:
>>> Any Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by publicly
>>> alleging that the Silent Player has abandoned the game. A
>>> Player has abandoned the game
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Sgeo wrote:
>> Any Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by publicly
>> alleging that the Silent Player has abandoned the game. A
>> Player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As
>>
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The whole reason we made Rests transfer to first-class members of
> partnerships was so that we could make first-class members take
> responsibility for their partnerships' actions. This was a deliberate
> repair to a broken equity system, and
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009, Warrigal wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
Amend Rule 2228 by removing the second paragraph.
>>>
>>> Restricted ownership of Rests.
>>
>> This points to another issue; this makes partnerships into shells
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Amend Rule 2228 by removing the second paragraph.
>>
>> Restricted ownership of Rests.
>
> This points to another issue; this makes partnerships into shells who
> can commit crimes etc without living up
Goethe wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Amend Rule 2228 by removing the second paragraph.
>> Restricted ownership of Rests.
>
> This points to another issue; this makes partnerships into shells who
> can commit crimes etc without living up to the "devolve responsibility"
> claus
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Amend Rule 2228 by removing the second paragraph.
>
> Restricted ownership of Rests.
This points to another issue; this makes partnerships into shells who
can commit crimes etc without living up to the "devolve responsibility"
clause in any meaningful way.
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, comex wrote:
> [Most restrictions on second-class players are removed, though the
> registration limitations remain. Suddenly, existing partnerships
> (which generally registered before the Agoran Consent requirement) are
> valuable and might be worth trading around.]
The se
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:04 PM, comex wrote:
> Amend rules 2186, 2199, 2177, 1950, 2236, 591, 1504, 1868, 2136, and
> 2233 by removing each occurrence of "first-class".
>
> Amend Rule 2228 by removing the second paragraph.
>
> Amend Rule 2124 by removing each occurrence of "first-class" and by
>
comex wrote:
> Proto: Civil Rights (AI=3)
>
> Amend rules 2186, 2199, 2177, 1950, 2236, 591, 1504, 1868, 2136, and
> 2233 by removing each occurrence of "first-class".
These are:
2186 (Win by Solitude)
2199 (White Ribbons)
2177 (Senators)
1950 (voting on Democratic decisions)
2236 (Committees on
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> When one became a zombie, an auction was held. The winning bidder
> would gain complete power of attorney over the zombie, and would
> traditionally Loot the Body of currency, then keep possession of the
> zombie; zombies could vote, earn wage
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Sgeo wrote:
> Any Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by publicly
> alleging that the Silent Player has abandoned the game. A
> Player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As
> soon as possible after a public allegation that a Player ha
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 16:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> FUGITIVES (Players who left Under a Cloud, unofficial list)
> Player Date deregistered
> -
> Sir Toby 20 May 05
Sir Toby reregistered and ap
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote:
> The
> win conditions of Agora have been developed over time and cause all
> sorts of parts of the game to open up which would otherwise be
> irrelevant.
Yah, keep going, you've almost unlocked the first bonus action.
You'll need it against the next Boss scam.
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 22:18 -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> I just realized that root would have qualified for the patent title
> Groovy (for winning three different ways), if we hadn't repealed it
> prematurely. Is it worth bringing back?
Ah, yes please. I've been going for that one for mont
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 09:18:24 pm Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > CHAMPION BY:
> >CARDS Goddess Eris, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root
> > MANIAC Craig, root
> > PARADOX Goethe, Murphy, root, BobTHJ, ais523,
On Sep 30, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CHAMPION BY:
CARDS Goddess Eris, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr, root
MANIAC Craig, root
PARADOX Goethe, Murphy, root, BobTHJ, ais523, ehird
I just realized that root would have qualified for the patent title
Gr
Quazie wrote:
> Was I part of that scam? Or was i just interested in seeing something
> intersting happen?
Looks like neither.
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-January/006052.html
> On each proposal in the group of proposals from proposal 4893 to proposal
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Goethe wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Fantasy Rule Catalyst:Peter
Fantasy Rule Compulsion: Zefram
Fantasy Rule Conspirator: OscarMeyr
Goethe wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Fantasy Rule Catalyst:Peter
>>> Fantasy Rule Compulsion: Zefram
>>> Fantasy Rule Conspirator: OscarMeyr
>>> Fantasy Rule Creator: Murphy
>> What was the Fantasy Rules Scam?
>
>
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Fantasy Rule Catalyst:Peter
>> Fantasy Rule Compulsion: Zefram
>> Fantasy Rule Conspirator: OscarMeyr
>> Fantasy Rule Creator: Murphy
> What was the Fantasy Rules Scam?
Murphy, would you like to
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 10:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Fantasy Rule Catalyst:Peter
> Fantasy Rule Compulsion: Zefram
> Fantasy Rule Conspirator: OscarMeyr
> Fantasy Rule Creator: Murphy
What was the Fantasy Rules Scam?
--
ais523
> 7 Jul 2008 15:49:00 -0400
> Attempted action by Sgeo: "With Agoran Consent, I act on behalf
> of Agora to award myself and all supporters a Win." Success of
> action subject to CFJ 2055.
>
> 7 Jul 2008 15:59:46 -0400
> Sgeo posts (or attempts to post subject to CFJ 205
47 matches
Mail list logo
