Subject: [MacroNomic] my votes - with some long comments

From: Aidan McLoughlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 12:15:43 +0100

nice to see the game starting to pickup again :)

197: Loyal

198: Loyal  - heh heh kewl!... I see possibilities here.

199: Loyal

200: Loyal

201: For    - But it's all just interpretation really - i don't think any
judge               		would be that nasty.

202: Loyal

203: Loyal  - I am scared by the prospect of having to sort this big scary
	beast out into the rules, but hey, that's wot i'm paid for :)

204: Loyal  - the proposal is a little unclear, but i take it you mean:

		In rule 3-2-2 replace "A trial may not be called if there are 		fewer
than five players." with "A trial may not be called if 		there are fewer
than five non-vacationing, graduated players."

205: Loyal

206: Loyal  - But if i were an RP member i wud be against it.  Also you are
		technically breaking your own rule: to verb?

207: Loyal

208: Loyal  - Doesn't bother me, i'm a good little boy.

Dan

  /================================================================\
  | Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.  |
  | But on the other hand, you have different fingers. --  :)      |
  \================================================================/

---

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 07:47:33 -0700 (PDT)

>		technically breaking your own rule: to verb?
	Absurd!  A member of the RP could never be a hypocrite!  I
imposibilized it!

--
-Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Thank heavens, the sun has gone in, and I don't have to go out and
enjoy it.
		-Logan Pearsall Smith