BobTHJ wrote:
Oh, and just to note: The proof already exists. It simply requires
time for me to make it public.
I don't buy it. Provide an outline of the proof and I may change
my mind.
BobTHJ wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 5:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
Oh, and just to note: The proof already exists. It simply requires
time for me to make it public.
I don't buy it. Provide an outline of the proof and I may change
my mind.
Here'
Zefram wrote:
Too late, I already assigned a judge (root). I would have given you more
time, but CFJ 1810 came up and I wanted to get it processed promptly.
(And I wanted to avoid out-of-sequence CFJ numbering.)
I previously assumed that the retraction was successful, so the CotC
database cur
BobTHJ wrote:
nkep would be nonsensical even if it were a defined action either in
the rules or a contract. These statements are not contradictory.
Then in what way would the private whatever-it-is impact the
appropriateness of judgement on either CFJ 1799 or CFJ 1805?
pikhq wrote:
I do hereby initiate an equity CFJ on the following:
Murphy is in breach of our contract concerning marks by not sending me 1 blue
mark and 1 black mark.
Murphy and I are parties to the contract in question.
For evidence of this contract, ask H. Notary Goethe.
It's a fair cop.
BobTHJ wrote:
Beccause, nkep can be both nonsensical and an action at the same time.
Just because it is nonsense doesn't mean it can't be an action (and
therefore permissible).
Nonsense. Stuff and. Caddy smelled like trees.
Goethe wrote:
While I was temporarily unaware of UNAWARE, I still prefer EXCUSED as
a precedent for this. If a Judge is aware of some contrary argument,
e should still be ethically charged to "not avoid" making *what e believes
in good faith* to be an appropriate judgement, even if e is aware
comex wrote:
The AFO claims a rule 2134 win.
Might be invalid, because you misspelled "decrease"
I tend to agree with the other two reasons that this will probably
be shot down, but not this one; R754(1) applies, especially coming
hot on the heels of your message.
Eris wrote:
On 11/28/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I spend 2 Green VCs to gain 200 Green Marks
I don't think this works.
Correct. Again, voluntary conversion is one-way in the Marks -> VCs
direction.
root wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 10:20 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
The Truthkeepor is an office;
Insert "low-priority".
The inspiration for this was that it's getting to be difficult to
remember what the self-ratification status is for each VC report,
especially s
root wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 11:12 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In my estimation that deters from one of the strengths of this system.
All Players (or all possible judicial panels) are qualified judges,
even those who are second-class or not presently interested in
judging. Will th
Zefram wrote:
something like "... whose Quality for that case is not within 5 of the
highest Quality for that case among those eligible to be judge".
"... whose Quality for that case is at least 5 less than the Quality
of another eligible judge".
Eagerness is an integer index with a value fr
Goethe wrote:
Precedent is mixed on whether "spend 0 VCs" is an action (see CFJ 1444 vs.
CFJ 1456). I also remember a stronger precedent with regard to fees that
supports the caller's arguments, but I also haven't found it on a cursory
look, may look deeper later. At this point, I do not rely
Goethe wrote:
5334 D1 3Murphy Refactor co-authors
AGAINST (doesn't fix co-authors against their will?)
Feel free to propose adding something like "The author SHALL NOT
specify a co-author unless a significant portion of the proposal
accurately represents the co-author's input".
pikhq wrote:
5320 O1 1pikhq Non-reporting Office
Thanks to recent VVLOP increases, I vote FOR this twice more.
This doesn't work. These increases will only affect your voting limit
starting with proposals distributed next week.
Proto-Proposal: Types of switches
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by appending this text:
A slider is a switch with an infinite number of possible values.
A button is a switch with exactly two possible values. "To
press an instance of a button" is to make it come
root wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 5:54 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Types of switches
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by appending this text:
A slider is a switch with an infinite number of possible values.
A button is a switch with e
root wrote:
pikhq's announcement was similar, but each action read "decreate"
rather than "decrease". I argue that this difference is meaningless
per Rule 754(i).
Gratuituous arguments for 1814:
More precisely, each action in pikhq's announcement read "decreate
by 1" rather than "decrease by
pikhq wrote:
(besides, such a claim would be bullshit: this isn't a question on a
rule-defined action)
I was actually going to CFJ with an argument that perhaps it was,
except that it's moot due to the UNDECIDABLE vs. UNDETERMINED fix.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Surprising no one, I intend (with the consent of fellow panelists
Levi and pikhq) to cause the panel to publish the following:
Better specify in the message body which appeal you're delivering that
judgement in.
Also, are you going to appeal 1807? You&#
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Surprising no one, I intend (with the consent of fellow panelists
Levi and pikhq) to cause the panel to publish the following:
Better specify in the message body which appeal you're delivering that
judgement in.
I contend that this is sufficiently unambi
Goethe wrote:
As the AFO has identified itself as public, I hereby request a current
membership list and text of the agreement. H. Notary Goethe.
(If the AFO was not made public by its own internal consent, I request
to be informed of that as well).
This has multiple problems:
1) Proposal
Goethe wrote:
- First, "decreate" is (most likely accidentally) a word and concept
useable for assets (i.e. "destroy"). This is ambiguous enough to
invalidate this attempt (CFJ 1814).
But the target of this verb is VLOP, which (as you mention in the
next paragraph) isn't an asset. No
Goethe wrote:
H. OscarMeyr, you're listed as winning twice, but the only record of a
win from Murphy's AWJ archives is Champion's Contest 5/5/02... do you
recall the other method? I vaguely remember you held a good card hand
once. -Goethe
E won via Three Trios on 2/6/05. I've updated the i
Goethe wrote:
This is my current record of win methods, ones within my time are
categorized between Murphy's posts and my memory. Comments (and
categories for earlier eras?) -goethe
See http://zenith.homelinux.net/winners/
particularly the nature of the wins on 10/08/97.
Eris wrote:
On 11/30/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CARDS Goddess Eris
CONTEST Goddess Eris
I can't remember how I won these things. It's a bit like this old
golden apple I have...
I'll take that.
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Fri 23 Nov 23:04:30 Murphy -409b transfer to BobTHJ
Fri 23 Nov 23:04:30 BobTHJ -409b transfer from Murphy
CoE: there should be a "+" in the "transfer from" lines.
Fixed in next draft.
CoE: your VC event history doesn't list
BobTHJ wrote:
Digits are a currency that is owned by Players. There are ten types of
Digits, represented by the numbers 0 through 9. All Digits of the same
numerical value are fungible. The Banker is the recordkeeper of
Digits.
Omitting comments already covered by Zefram.
"Digits are classes
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
CoE: your VC event history doesn't list me receiving a violet VC for
Nine Months Long Service. What else have you missed?
You've only been registered since 10 Jan 07. You've held Rulekeepor
since 21 Mar 07,
Er, where did my violet VC (l
Zefram wrote:
After the last time you protoed this, I came up with the optimal
expression for Expression Factories. Suppose you have two Digit Ranches,
one generating 0 digits and one generating 1 digits. An Expression
Factory with the expression
11 * (2 + 4X + 2Y + Z)
will generate
Proto-Proposal: Mark decay
(AI = 2, please)
Amend the rule "Marks" by appending this text to the list of ways
to gain and lose Marks:
(-*) Two seconds before the end of each month, each entity loses
eir holdings of each color of Mark, rounded down to the
nearest mult
pikhq wrote:
Are you *sure* you want to do that? We can get around it. . . Besides, it's
only 32 VCs that I have. Just let marks decay into VCs, and the problem is
basically solved (assuming that the anti-VC-decay proposal doesn't pass)
Not very quickly. Ignoring other changes, it would take
Eris wrote:
On 12/1/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This will produce pairs of the same Digit. It might sometimes be useful
to produce two different digits, but that's probably only slightly more
complicated as well. For instance, with 0 and 1 inputs,
11 * (1 + 4X +
Eris wrote:
On 12/1/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Mark decay
(AI = 2, please)
Amend the rule "Marks" by appending this text to the list of ways
to gain and lose Marks:
(-*) Two seconds before the end of each month, each entity loses
I wrote:
You might want to dig through Pumpkin Patch Nomic's old rules on
letter farms: http://www.nomic.net/deadgames/pumpkinpatch/EdRules.html
Briefly, instead of Equation Factories, they had Word Machines:
1) A word machine is a list of words (in the OED) where each word
consists o
root wrote:
Of course, letting it occur platonically can lead to cascading
reporting errors, but then that's why VCs are self-ratifying.
Yes, and that's been working _so well_, too.
Wooble wrote:
5339 D0 2Murphy Andre's degree
AGAINST [Suber's Rule 211 solves this paradox, contrary to the thesis'
assertion that no change to the rules could deal with it effectively]
Disagree. Suber's Rule 211 only addresses M-M and I-I
conflicts. Andre's thesis examines the a
Goethe wrote:
5343 O1 1Murphy Clarify win by voting power
AGAINSTx7 (should remain tied to high level 683 voting power in general,
not a specific mode of figuring out voting power).
*ponders* Like this?
Upon a correct announcement that a specified player's voting
Levi wrote:
Josiah Worcester wrote:
If Agora's Child was not a player before, the AFO announces the
following:
Agora's Child registers as a player.
I'm not sure this achieves anything.
I believe to register as a player that player has to announce that they
register.
The AFO is able to co
Zefram wrote:
Note: this ruleset currently shows rule histories as they would be if
CFJ 1711 were TRUE. In fact CFJ 1711 is FALSE, so the affected rule
histories are shown incorrectly. This will be corrected in a future
edition.
We've been waiting for this correction for over a month now.
P
Zefram wrote:
Taral wrote:
What are you smoking, Zefram? See my message before about M and N
being arbitrary (different) digits.
Your formula will accept digits M and N and output digits 2 to 9.
Not so useful if M=3 and N=7: you have no way to get 0 and 1 digits.
The complexity in my formula
Wooble wrote:
On Dec 1, 2007 11:35 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wooble wrote:
5339 D0 2Murphy Andre's degree
AGAINST [Suber's Rule 211 solves this paradox, contrary to the thesis'
assertion that no change to the rules could deal with it e
root wrote:
I find that pikhq succeeded in creating several contracts that e deems
to be dependent, but not in creating any contracts that are dependent
as required by Rule 2136. I therefore find CFJ 1816 FALSE; it follows
trivially that CFJ 1817 is FALSE as well.
I thought the point of pikhq
Zefram wrote:
You (the initiator) can't bar an extra person in a criminal case.
As the barring would normally be an integral part of initiating the case,
I'm not sure whether it's separable. Hence I'm not sure whether you've
initiated a criminal case at all. Opinions?
Rule 1504, relevant par
Zefram wrote:
JOOI, are there any parties to the agreement in question other than pikhq
and you?
No.
pikhq wrote:
I don't. Wait for the proposal adding UNAWARE to pass *succesfully*. ;)
And risk being dinged for late judgement? I think not.
root wrote:
5348 D1 3Murphy Refactor regulation
AGAINST. Same reasons I voted against all the other versions of this.
What reasons are those, again? It's been long enough and busy enough
that I've forgotten.
Proto-Proposal: Fix revocation of judicial salary
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2126 (Voting Power) by replacing this text:
(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause
loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an
appeal case where a judgem
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, comex wrote:
H. Notary Goethe, I formally request that you (per R2173) disclose to me
the private contract in question's text and set of parties to the extent
that you have been informed of it.
The following was received by me: complete headers available if n
root wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 10:23 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What reasons are those, again? It's been long enough and busy enough
that I've forgotten.
Regarding the first version, I said:
Primarily because I don't think that impossible actions should
nece
Eris wrote:
I think this was deliberate.
If a judge judges GUILTY and delivers sentence, e gains 1 Blue and
1 Black. If the GUILTY is overturned, e only loses 1 Blue. That's
wrong, whether it was deliberate or not.
Eris wrote:
On 12/4/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eris wrote:
I think this was deliberate.
If a judge judges GUILTY and delivers sentence, e gains 1 Blue and
1 Black. If the GUILTY is overturned, e only loses 1 Blue. That's
wrong, whether it was deliberate or not.
comex wrote:
On 12/5/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Create a rule with Power 3.1 and this text:
Devil's advocate: If you achieve AI=3 you could just repeal the guardian rules.
No, the guardian rules would block their own repeal.
comex wrote:
Proto: Make modifying information with a recordkeepor the only grounds
for regulation; keep R1698.
These two things by themselves are not enough. Imagine the following
Terrible Proposal:
Create a rule with Power 3.1 and this text:
Rules CAN be changed by announcement, but
comex wrote:
On 12/5/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Regulated actions external to the rules (e.g. sending messages)
are ILLEGAL by default. Regulated actions defined by the rules
(e.g. casting votes) are IMPOSSIBLE by default.
This could make a bug in the
root wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 11:05 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, the guardian rules would block their own repeal.
Only if the proposal repealing them violates their conditions.
You could repeal the guardian rules in one proposal, then break
the nomic in a second pr
Proto-Proposal: Refactor regulation
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 2125 (Regulation Regulations) to read:
An action is regulated if and only if at least one of the
following is true:
(a) The rules state that it is IMPOSSIBLE, or POSSIBLE under
limited circumstances
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
the prior judge loses one Blue VC, unless the prior
question is on sentencing.
It's deliberate that a judge whose sentence is overturned loses a
different colour of VC from the one that e gained. It makes black VCs
more interesting.
BobTHJ wrote:
All Crops of the same numerical value are fungible.
This is already part of the general definition of currencies.
A player CAN Mill a given number by spending a Crop of the
corresponding type for each digit in that number's canonical decimal
representation.. A player CANNOT Mil
pikhq wrote:
The AFO and I amend our contract, so that clause 5 reads:
5) If the AFO does not have 14 blue VCs to give to pikhq, it shall, whenever
it has 2 blue VCs, spend them to give pikhq 1 VC, until pikhq has recieved 14
blue VCs by this method.
This still doesn't turn itself off after
Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
In CFJ 1813, Goethe argued that VVLOP is defined as a "parameter",
implicitly treated as a number, but could also be interpreted as a set
of numbers (added up whenever the value of VVLOP is queried).
Nice one, completely
BobTHJ wrote:
#1 seems the most logical, and yet it makes a valid case for the
elimination of stare decisis. Who wants to review the past X years of
case history to determine if a fragment of a judgment somewhere might
have bearing on a present-day situation? There should be some sort of
expirat
avpx wrote:
I object.
NttPF.
Proto-Proposal: Structured victory
(AI = 3, please)
Create a rule titled "Victory" with Power 2 and this text:
When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning
Condition and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, those
persons win the game. Winning Conditions and Losing
pikhq wrote:
The IADOP's report is a *weekly* report. . . And I see monthly reports from
it.
Rule 2160.
Eris wrote:
On 12/7/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Trigger: A judicial finding that the possibility or
legality of an action (actual or hypothetical, but not
arising from that case itself) is UNDECIDABLE.
Not strong enough. Needs to be rest
pikhq wrote:
"Return of Titles"
DO NOT WANT
pikhq wrote:
On Saturday 08 December 2007 12:27:56 Ed Murphy wrote:
pikhq wrote:
"Return of Titles"
DO NOT WANT
Why not? Too much pointlessness, H. Samurai Murphy?
Pretty much. Then again, that's probably the same attitude that
keeps getting The Republic of Agor
TTttCN
Original Message
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:28:17 -0800
From: Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Accessorizing
pikhq wrote:
I create the following agreement:
[snip]
7) A Jester's Cap may be put on or taken off.
pikhq wrote:
7) A Jester's Cap may be put on or taken off.
So much for the precedent of CFJ 1628.
The precedent of CFJ *1629* already went away. Consider the Elephant
Contract. ;)
I'd suggest going for the trifecta and mooting 1630, but I'm not sure
that we really want to bring back Insane
pikhq wrote:
Madness is a switch,
"a person switch"
The Mental Health Department's report must include the persons who are Mad
that e can reasonably be aware of; due to the inconclusiveness of Early
Agoran History, not all persons who have earned Madness need be included.
Actua
pikhq wrote:
Amusing. I suspect this will only last a year, but you never know with us.
After all, this *is* the only Nomic that has lasted longer than some
governments. ;)
Marks may go away, but hopefully the definition of the unbirthday itself
will stick around. January 12 and 14 are impor
pikhq wrote:
Marks may go away, but hopefully the definition of the unbirthday itself
will stick around. January 12 and 14 are important dates to me. :)
Why's that?
Anniversary and younger son's birthday.
OscarMeyr wrote:
Just for comparison, here's the mailing list archive sizes for November
in the last few years for business and discussion:
Month/yearBusinessDiscussion
Nov 200478 kB34 kB
Nov 200510 kB1 kB
Nov 200638 kB28 kB
Nov 2007670 kB
comex wrote:
On Saturday 08 December 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
7) A Jester's Cap may be put on or taken off.
Position is a Jester's Cap switch, tracked by pikhq...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats
I wrote:
I intend, with the consent of all other partners, to amend the AFO
charter by replacing clause 3 with this text:
3. The AFO may incur obligations, rights, and privileges under the
rules of other nomics. The Partners may act on behalf of the AFO
to satisfy such obligations and to exerc
Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Barring isn't described at all, so I think it's like anything else that
might be slipped in between things and ineffective, so separable.
On reflection, I think it is separable in this case, because you stated it
as a separate sentence rather than as an integr
pikhq wrote:
Most Honorable Champions Murphy and Levi, I invite you to submit arguments
about the equitability of this state of events. The pretrial phase ends in
one week, or whenever both parties announce the intent to end the pretrial
phase.
I no longer have the Green Mark. (I transferre
Levi wrote:
I also note that the judgement comes into effect as a binding agreement,
but, by Rule 101, it can't be forced upon someone, so what if Murphy
refused to become a party to the judgement agreement? Is that possible?
I'm pretty sure that intent to have the contract governed by the ru
pikhq wrote:
I note that this does not fulfill that obligation; the agreement does not come
into effect for a week.
Does "previous" refer to the time the agreement was published, or the
time it goes into effect? Oh well, I'll transfer another Orange Mark
next week just to be safe.
Proto-Proposal: Depth
(AI = 2, please)
[Revisiting an old concept]
Create a rule titled "Depth" with this text:
Each proposal in the Proposal Pool has a Depth, a non-negative
integer, initially equal to its interest index.
At the beginning of each week, the Depth of each pro
Iammars wrote:
Gotcha. The nomic where I come from transmuted the 25-rule limit on
mutable rules, so we consider it bad to have rules of pure silliness.
Which nomic would that be?
Levi wrote:
A Wager MAY be offered by any player by announcement.
To be a valid the Wager announcement MUST contain the following:
"A Wager is an announcement specifying the following:"
(a) A statement that is, or will become, true or false,
(b) The number a
Iammars wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 12:18 AM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
On Sunday 09 December 2007 22:08:05 Ed Murphy wrote:
> Of course, all of this could be done anyway by offering to agree
to an
> appropriate
BobTHJ wrote:
If it is currently a holiday, any player CAN Mill the date to gain X
magenta marks, where X is equal to the number of times any player has
previously gained marks in this way on that date in the same year plus
one.
The point of holidays is to minimize the disadvantage of players
Goethe wrote:
The SUPPORT/OBJECT method, despite being a "ballot", is not so much
a legislative vote as it is a committee procedure ("It has been moved
and seconded, are there any opposed?"). Really, they shouldn't be
Agoran Decisions at all, that was misguided generalization.
Actually, they
Proto-proto: Music
Tones are a family of currencies. Enharmonics are either equivalent or
cheap to convert. [How would they be acquired?]
Simple Tones can be combined into Complex Tones (e.g. chords, scales).
Durations are a family of currencies. Durations (including rests) and
Tones can be
pikhq wrote:
As Agoran Ambassador and Self-Proclaimed Agoran Spy, I feel it is my duty to
transmit the following message from B Nomic:
jt jo b Tubuf pg Fnfshfodz! Buubdl opx! Uijt
nfttbhf xbt cspvhiu up zpv cz Bncbttbeps Iptf.
That will be all.
"These people are crazy. All of this is cr
In case anyone missed it (it was in the middle of processing some
improvements to the Regular Ordinances), the theme of Round 255 of
the Fantasy Rules Committee is "0xFF". As usual, the round will
begin when the first fantasy rule (valid or not) is posted.
Players of Agora can score points towar
Iammars wrote:
I join the above contest.
NttPF (not to the Public Forum), hence ineffective.
Wooble wrote:
I didn't try to figure out how to actually go about computing primes;
how to do any sort of useful conditional statements was beyond me
(since submitting my program I read up a bit on brainfuck algorithms
and should probably be better equipped for the next task, but it would
have f
Would anyone be interested in starting a new game using the rules
below? Are there any problems that would kill it before it started?
Rule 101/0
A citizen shall not commit treason (disobey the rules).
Rule 102/0 (Blue)
At the moment the game starts, the rules consist of Rules 101
I hereby initiate the game of ParaNomic XP, choosing the mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] as the initial public forum, and the
following set of rules as the initial set of rules.
== Rules ==
Rule 1-0/0: Bootstrapping the rules (Ultraviolet)
The initial set of rules is the set chosen by The
comex wrote:
But I seem to be in the minority with this opinion... I suppose you could
argue that the only advantages partnerships ought to have are those that
occur only when the members are in agreement, such as being able to more
efficiently spend VCs. Hmm...
Requiring even passive agree
Eris wrote:
On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
7. Any player may join the Vote Market by announcement. Upon joining
the Vote Market, 50 VP are created in the possession of that player.
First class?
A partnership could welsh on an agreement by dissolving, but only if
someone
comex wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
The party who posted the Sell
Ticket is then OBLIGATED to cast all eir votes on that decision in the
same manner as specified by the party who filled the Sell Ticket, but
only if the voting period on that decision does not end within t
Eris wrote:
On 12/14/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Eris wrote:
On 12/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
7. Any player may join the Vote Market by announcement. Upon joining
the Vote Market, 50 VP are created in the possession of that player.
Fir
root wrote:
The advantage to being a party to a contract is the security granted
by that contract. I've never supported granting players extra rights
just for making contracts, which is effectively what partnerships do.
What was/is your take on Groups?
pikhq wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 20:36:19 comex wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007, Josiah Worcester wrote:
Do you even pay *attention* to the weekly report on VVLOPs?
At the top of the message I gave the AFO a VVLOP. I suppose overvoting is
annoying; I might need to get out of the hab
pikhq wrote:
An action is regulated if:
1) The actions prohibited.
s/actions/action is/
2) The rules state that a player is permitted to perform some
action if certain conditions are met
s/some action/the action/
3) The action would, as part of its effect, modify information
f
601 - 700 of 3637 matches
Mail list logo
