| Craig Daniel on Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:44:49 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-b] Assignments of Consultations 179-187 |
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Question: Is an e-mail address described to a person by specifying >> domain and MD5 checksum, but not account name (e.g. describing >> cabal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx as "the address at jaycampbell.com with MD5 >> checksum 4dcd83b0338eaee8e8f8196f34095d18"), reasonably accessible >> to that person (as required of Emergency Fora by Rule 5E0)? > > When I chose a priest using the dice server, the eligible priests were > JamesB (1), 0x44 (2), teucer (3), ehird (4), and Billy Pilgrim (5). I > assign Consultation 179 to teucer. I answer this consultation YES. We need to fix this, obviously. > I submit the following Consultation, because ehird asked me to: "Did j > violate the rules by turning the clock on?" I assign this Consultation > the number 187. > > The eligible priests are BobTHJ, teucer, JamesB, Murphy, and Billy > Pilgrim. My five-sided die says 2, so I assign Consultation 187 to > teucer. I answer this Consultation YES, and assign Bail of m25 and a Term of one nweek. - teucer _______________________________________________ spoon-business mailing list spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business