API tools faq
paste
Advertisement
Ghant

IxConvention 12/24

Ghant
Dec 24th, 2015
119
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 22.09 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Thu Dec 24 18:05:56 2015
  2.  
  3. Dec 24 18:05:57 »» Now talking on #IxnayConvention
  4. Dec 24 18:06:03 «--- Pauldustllah (Mibbit@ip70-170-53-254.lv.lv.cox.net) has Left #IxnayConvention
  5. Dec 24 18:06:06 ---» Pauldustllah (Mibbit@ip70-170-53-254.lv.lv.cox.net) has Joined #IxnayConvention
  6. Dec 24 18:06:06 <Jakee> Hello Ghant
  7. Dec 24 18:06:17 <Urcea> as i said im not gonna let any binding decisions be made here since we didnt announce the meeting
  8. Dec 24 18:06:23 <Urcea> and are missing people (even tho we have quorum)
  9. Dec 24 18:06:27 <Kronreich> We can still discuss
  10. Dec 24 18:06:29 <Urcea> that said i would like to discuss an agenda
  11. Dec 24 18:06:49 <Urcea> i like the 3 current ones and think they are good to vote on
  12. Dec 24 18:07:20 <Urcea> Ghant would you be willng to change your amendment to say "If a nation has no defense budget, they may have up to 2% of their budget constitute their defense spending allocation; they may also do so if their budget spending for defense is less than 2%".
  13. Dec 24 18:07:36 <Ghant> Yes, just a second
  14. Dec 24 18:07:40 <Urcea> what issues does everybody think needs attention? I think the voting rules are needlessly complex and could be better stated
  15. Dec 24 18:08:02 <Jakee> Have we talked about NPC wars yet?
  16. Dec 24 18:08:03 <Ghant> Hmm, let's start with that then
  17. Dec 24 18:08:14 <Kronreich> Or, how about: "If a nation has a defense budget that is less than 2%, or none at all, then they may have up to 2% of their budget be allocated to defense spending."
  18. Dec 24 18:08:32 <@Heku> ^
  19. Dec 24 18:08:37 <Urcea> kron thats what i said
  20. Dec 24 18:08:41 <Urcea> just stated differently
  21. Dec 24 18:08:45 <Urcea> i guess yours is a little more direct
  22. Dec 24 18:09:14 <Urcea> I would like to get rid of one convention delegate since, with latin on the board, we now have an even number
  23. Dec 24 18:09:38 <Ghant> "The players shall be responsible for determining their defense budget out of their new GDP, however defense spending percentage is still binding. Aside from defense spending, a player is free to choose how the remainder of his budget will be spent. A calculator will be provided for players to use to determine their GDP, but will not be determined for players. If a nation has no defense budget, they may have up to 2% of their
  24. Dec 24 18:09:38 <Ghant> budget constitute their defense spending allocation; they may also do so if their budget spending for defense is less than 2%".
  25. Dec 24 18:09:51 <Urcea> I like kron's wording better
  26. Dec 24 18:09:59 <Ghant> hmm, yes
  27. Dec 24 18:11:00 <Ghant> Here
  28. Dec 24 18:11:01 <Ghant> "The players shall be responsible for determining their defense budget out of their new GDP, however defense spending percentage is still binding. Aside from defense spending, a player is free to choose how the remainder of his budget will be spent. A calculator will be provided for players to use to determine their GDP, but will not be determined for players. If a nation has a defense budget that is less than 2%, or none at
  29. Dec 24 18:11:01 <Ghant> all, then they may have up to 2% of their budget be allocated to defense spending."
  30. Dec 24 18:11:20 <Ghant> Here's my issue with this wording though
  31. Dec 24 18:11:20 <Urcea> maybe we need to reorganize the thing into numbers and sections
  32. Dec 24 18:11:24 <Urcea> its really hard to read right now
  33. Dec 24 18:11:46 <Kronreich> Making things easier to read is definitely needed.
  34. Dec 24 18:11:46 <Ghant> What if a player has 5% according to NS stats, but wants to RP their defense budget under that percentage?
  35. Dec 24 18:11:51 <Ghant> They should have that right
  36. Dec 24 18:11:54 <Pauldustllah> we should strive for clarity
  37. Dec 24 18:11:58 <Pauldustllah> they do have that right
  38. Dec 24 18:12:06 <Pauldustllah> nothing prevents them from doing so
  39. Dec 24 18:12:09 <Urcea> thats also implicit
  40. Dec 24 18:12:13 <Urcea> we can make it explicit
  41. Dec 24 18:12:19 <Ghant> Hold on
  42. Dec 24 18:13:07 <Ghant> Read this
  43. Dec 24 18:13:08 <Ghant> "The players shall be responsible for determining their defense budget out of their new GDP, however defense spending percentage is still binding as a maximum possible percentage. Aside from defense spending, a player is free to choose how the remainder of his budget will be spent. A calculator will be provided for players to use to determine their GDP, but will not be determined for players. If a nation has a defense budget
  44. Dec 24 18:13:08 <Ghant> that is less than 2%, or none at all, then they may have up to 2% of their budget be allocated to defense spending."
  45. Dec 24 18:13:16 <Urcea> thats on the agenda
  46. Dec 24 18:13:17 <Urcea> 5. A rule stating that any cap (i.e. the 1/10th of pop rule or GDP per capita) can, by the player, not be adhered to by shooting under that number, for example, i am capped to a $45 billion defense budget but decide to only go with $23 billion
  47. Dec 24 18:13:22 <Urcea> thats fine ghanto
  48. Dec 24 18:14:03 <Urcea> here's one
  49. Dec 24 18:14:07 <Ghant> I think an "under the cap" by law or whatever should be on there.
  50. Dec 24 18:14:10 <Ghant> That's good, Urc
  51. Dec 24 18:14:28 <Urcea> how about if a nation wants to merge with another nation it should be reviewed by the arb board for making intuitive sense and also making sense ICly
  52. Dec 24 18:14:44 <Pauldustllah> a dorhaven rule.
  53. Dec 24 18:14:47 <Urcea> ^^
  54. Dec 24 18:15:07 <Ghant> I agree with that, basically to make sure it doesn't break the roleplaying environment.
  55. Dec 24 18:15:13 <Ghant> Basically like an anti-trust thing.
  56. Dec 24 18:15:18 <Ghant> To avoid "monopolies"
  57. Dec 24 18:15:36 <Urcea> so like
  58. Dec 24 18:15:44 <Urcea> levantian union, yeah maybe makes sense depending on a bunch of things
  59. Dec 24 18:15:44 <Ghant> There's another one I want to propose.
  60. Dec 24 18:15:48 <Urcea> dorhaven-kistan union: ???
  61. Dec 24 18:16:10 <Ghant> Well the LU thing makes sense is an organize result of RP
  62. Dec 24 18:16:18 <Ghant> Plus the players involved I trust not to abuse that.
  63. Dec 24 18:16:18 <Urcea> thats what i mean
  64. Dec 24 18:16:26 <Jakee> Nations under I'd say 3-400 mil be okay as far as a union go (also factoring in military, etc), then nations above be a nah.
  65. Dec 24 18:16:41 <Urcea> why would you say that
  66. Dec 24 18:16:57 <Jakee> With a caveat for people taking over for a person on vacation/hiatus like with Yytuskia.
  67. Dec 24 18:16:58 <Urcea> just using the example the Levantian Union makes intuitive sense given the cultures/commonalities
  68. Dec 24 18:17:16 <Urcea> im not sure i agree with vacation rule
  69. Dec 24 18:17:22 <Urcea> thats kind of immersion breaking
  70. Dec 24 18:17:33 <Jakee> True.
  71. Dec 24 18:17:40 <Urcea> granted yytuskia merger made sense
  72. Dec 24 18:17:47 <Urcea> bc they were very close ICly and YYtu was a good deal larger
  73. Dec 24 18:18:01 <Urcea> whats your idea ghant
  74. Dec 24 18:19:24 «--- Urcea (Mibbit@ool-18bb0795.dyn.optonline.net) has Quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  75. Dec 24 18:19:26 <Ghant> Hold on
  76. Dec 24 18:19:27 <Ghant> shit
  77. Dec 24 18:19:35 <Ghant> damn it
  78. Dec 24 18:19:51 <Jakee> That's like falling asleep in congress
  79. Dec 24 18:19:55 <Jakee> "Senator Urc"
  80. Dec 24 18:20:01 <Jakee> ZZZzzzZ
  81. Dec 24 18:20:17 <Ghant> Anyway, here it is
  82. Dec 24 18:20:18 <Ghant> “The existence of certain types of nations which by reasonable standards are unrealistic in an MT setting are strictly prohibited. The first is the so called ‘dream nation,’ which is fairly self-explanatory. A country where there are only strengths and no weaknesses, one that has unrivaled and an incorrigible position within the region, where all people have wealth and no one is lacking for want. Such nations ar
  83. Dec 24 18:20:18 <Ghant> e, by imagination, personal power fantasies that exist to be wanked by the player for personal satisfaction.
  84. Dec 24 18:20:18 <Ghant> The second is the so called ‘vindication nation’ (which is not mutually exclusive with the ‘dream country’). This type of nation is one where all citizens are united behind one unifying national ideology without any internal dissent whatsoever...one where the citizens of the nation are all of a same mind, which may or may not reflect the preferences of the nation player (which is often the case). The purpose
  85. Dec 24 18:20:18 <Ghant> of this nation, like the previous, is to fulfill the fantasies of the player, and not to facilitate dynamic roleplay.
  86. Dec 24 18:20:18 <Ghant> The Arbitration Board may review nations to ensure that they are in compliance with these prohibitions.”
  87. Dec 24 18:21:21 <Jakee> I agree with what you said about Vindication Nations, but not with dream nations.
  88. Dec 24 18:21:40 <Jakee> But that's just due to differing RP ideologies.
  89. Dec 24 18:22:09 <Ghant> The first one is by definition not in compliance with propr RP standards according to the site guidelines.
  90. Dec 24 18:22:14 <Ghant> Hence both.
  91. Dec 24 18:23:01 <Jakee> Shit I thought you meant what we talked about yesterday when you were talking about dream nations.
  92. Dec 24 18:23:07 <Jakee> Text was blending together.
  93. Dec 24 18:23:10 <Ghant> Ah
  94. Dec 24 18:23:17 «--- Jakee (Mibbit@172-124-249-25.lightspeed.spfdmo.sbcglobal.net) has Left #IxnayConvention
  95. Dec 24 18:23:25 ---» Jakee (Mibbit@172-124-249-25.lightspeed.spfdmo.sbcglobal.net) has Joined #IxnayConvention
  96. Dec 24 18:23:28 <Ghant> Kronreich, Pauldustllah thoughts?
  97. Dec 24 18:23:32 <Ghant> Heku?
  98. Dec 24 18:24:09 <@Heku> wait
  99. Dec 24 18:24:26 <Pauldustllah> I'm not sure, If I want the arbit board to have the power to review nations for compliance.
  100. Dec 24 18:24:26 <@Heku> arb board will review new nations randomly, or only if/when members complain
  101. Dec 24 18:24:41 <Ghant> yes
  102. Dec 24 18:24:55 <Ghant> This is good, because it will stop two things
  103. Dec 24 18:24:56 <Pauldustllah> Preferably, I would keep the arbit board for dispute resolution.
  104. Dec 24 18:25:17 <@Heku> i think it should be a delegate matter
  105. Dec 24 18:25:23 <Ghant> People RPing broken nations, and people RPing personal fantasies that are irredescent of the regional fabric.
  106. Dec 24 18:25:31 <Ghant> Well it would still be a dispute.
  107. Dec 24 18:25:48 <Ghant> Unless someone has an objection, there is no grounds.
  108. Dec 24 18:25:55 <Ghant> This would give someone grounds by which to object.
  109. Dec 24 18:26:41 <Pauldustllah> Well, if someone has an objection, then it IS within the powers of the arbit board to review it.
  110. Dec 24 18:26:42 <@Heku> arb board should only be used for resolving disputes, everything thing else should be at the discretion of founder/delegate
  111. Dec 24 18:28:11 ---» Malay (Mibbit@c-24-6-197-73.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has Joined #IxnayConvention
  112. Dec 24 18:28:11 <Pauldustllah> where did Urc go?
  113. Dec 24 18:28:24 <Jakee> He ran out of coke.
  114. Dec 24 18:28:29 <Malay> sup
  115. Dec 24 18:28:31 <Ghant> Malay, read this proposed amendment
  116. Dec 24 18:28:35 <Ghant> “The existence of certain types of nations which by reasonable standards are unrealistic in an MT setting are strictly prohibited. The first is the so called ‘dream nation,’ which is fairly self-explanatory. A country where there are only strengths and no weaknesses, one that has unrivaled and an incorrigible position within the region, where all people have wealth and no one is lacking for want. Such nations ar
  117. Dec 24 18:28:35 <Ghant> e, by imagination, personal power fantasies that exist to be wanked by the player for personal satisfaction.
  118. Dec 24 18:28:35 <Ghant> The second is the so called ‘vindication nation’ (which is not mutually exclusive with the ‘dream country’). This type of nation is one where all citizens are united behind one unifying national ideology without any internal dissent whatsoever...one where the citizens of the nation are all of a same mind, which may or may not reflect the preferences of the nation player (which is often the case). The purpose
  119. Dec 24 18:28:35 <Ghant> of this nation, like the previous, is to fulfill the fantasies of the player, and not to facilitate dynamic roleplay.
  120. Dec 24 18:28:35 <Ghant> The Arbitration Board may review nations to ensure that they are in compliance with these prohibitions.”
  121. Dec 24 18:28:44 <Pauldustllah> gotta keep an emergency supply of coke around...
  122. Dec 24 18:28:59 <Jakee> I keep some in my mattress.
  123. Dec 24 18:29:07 <Malay> so arb board basically just decides which nations fall under these categories
  124. Dec 24 18:29:20 <Ghant> This would allow a player to challenge another player for RPing a nation that is either a personal fantasy nation, or a broken nation meant to exploit the RP environment at its detriment.
  125. Dec 24 18:29:30 <Malay> mm
  126. Dec 24 18:29:41 <Ghant> Under this, I could (and would) object to Baclow on these grounds with the Arb board.
  127. Dec 24 18:29:55 <Ghant> As Baclow is a "vindication nation" by definition
  128. Dec 24 18:30:04 <Malay> if this amendment is aimed at a single player for means of revenge then I can't support it
  129. Dec 24 18:30:11 <Pauldustllah> I mean technically you could object to Baclow as it is.. if you were Rping with him.
  130. Dec 24 18:30:14 <Ghant> It's not one player
  131. Dec 24 18:30:31 <Ghant> It's designed to prevent the RP environment from being jipped, now and ever.
  132. Dec 24 18:30:44 <Malay> mhm
  133. Dec 24 18:31:11 <Ghant> Let me reiterate the key passage
  134. Dec 24 18:31:14 <Ghant> "The purpose
  135. Dec 24 18:31:14 <Ghant> <Ghant> of this nation, like the previous, is to fulfill the fantasies of the player, and not to facilitate dynamic roleplay."
  136. Dec 24 18:31:19 <Malay> I like the amendment besides the authority given to the arb board, not that that's avoidable
  137. Dec 24 18:31:23 <Jakee> A teacher got on to me for saying 'jipped' the other day.
  138. Dec 24 18:31:39 <Ghant> Who else would review it?
  139. Dec 24 18:31:43 <Malay> exactly
  140. Dec 24 18:31:45 <Ghant> Arb board is the most qualified.
  141. Dec 24 18:31:48 <Ghant> To review RP material.
  142. Dec 24 18:31:53 <Ghant> that's what it's there for.
  143. Dec 24 18:32:05 <Malay> yeah, sure, doesn't mean I like its existence :P
  144. Dec 24 18:32:12 <Pauldustllah> Tell her to leanr vernacular..
  145. Dec 24 18:32:18 <Ghant> You don't like the Arb board Malay?
  146. Dec 24 18:32:31 <Jakee> She yelled at me like there are actually gypsies at my school.
  147. Dec 24 18:32:31 <Malay> not really, but it doesn't do anything most of the time so
  148. Dec 24 18:32:32 <Malay> meh
  149. Dec 24 18:32:37 <Ghant> It has before.
  150. Dec 24 18:32:46 <Malay> I know, I was part of those rulings :P
  151. Dec 24 18:32:46 <Ghant> It resolved the Amerigo nuke dispute.
  152. Dec 24 18:33:04 <Jakee> When did Amerigo want to use the bomb?
  153. Dec 24 18:33:04 <Pauldustllah> Well, It only really has to do something when an issue arises. which is where I like it.
  154. Dec 24 18:33:14 <Ghant> It's good because it allows talented RPers to settled RP disputes, instead of politically inclined people.
  155. Dec 24 18:34:19 <Ghant> For instance, the Arb board is the most qualified body to determine if a nation is a fantasy nation
  156. Dec 24 18:35:39 «--- Jakee (Mibbit@172-124-249-25.lightspeed.spfdmo.sbcglobal.net) has Quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  157. Dec 24 18:36:07 <Ghant> Here's a question though
  158. Dec 24 18:36:17 <Ghant> If a nation is determined to be a fantasy nation, what's the next step?
  159. Dec 24 18:36:37 <Ghant> Give them a month to rework their nation into compliance? Ejection after a failure to comply?
  160. Dec 24 18:36:54 <Malay> I don't know that Urc would greenlight ejection measures
  161. Dec 24 18:37:51 <Ghant> What good is having a standard rule without a measure to enforce the rule?
  162. Dec 24 18:37:58 <Pauldustllah> I'm not sure we should codify everything. as that would narrow possible tools and solutions to solve problems.
  163. Dec 24 18:38:20 <Malay> I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a rule, I just think he'll reject it
  164. Dec 24 18:40:50 <Ghant> Reject the rule or reject the enforcement measure?
  165. Dec 24 18:41:06 <Ghant> So we need a non-ejection enforcement measure.
  166. Dec 24 18:41:21 <Malay> the enforcement measure
  167. Dec 24 18:41:58 <Ghant> So we can have a non-ejection enforcement measure that stipulates something along the lines of the nation being non-canon until its in compliance.
  168. Dec 24 18:42:00 <Ghant> better?
  169. Dec 24 18:42:07 <Malay> mmhmm
  170. Dec 24 18:43:55 <Ghant> I think that's fair.
  171. Dec 24 18:44:06 <Ghant> Having your nation be non-canon is a good enforcement mechanism.
  172. Dec 24 18:44:55 <Malay> agreed
  173. Dec 24 18:45:17 <Ghant> That way, nobody gets canned, and nobody has to worry about the nation breaking the RP environment
  174. Dec 24 18:45:41 <Malay> that's ideal
  175. Dec 24 18:46:10 «--- Pauldustllah (Mibbit@ip70-170-53-254.lv.lv.cox.net) has Quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  176. Dec 24 18:46:18 <Ghant> Kronreich?
  177. Dec 24 18:46:52 <Kronreich> Sorry folks, Christmas Eve activies stole me a way xP
  178. Dec 24 18:47:06 <Malay> hiyo lol
  179. Dec 24 18:47:10 <Kronreich> Hey Malay
  180. Dec 24 18:47:23 <Malay> I'll be gone in about half an hour for Christmas activities as well :P
  181. Dec 24 18:49:02 <Ghant> Kronreich, did you see the amendment?
  182. Dec 24 18:49:43 <Kronreich> Was it edited at all after changing the wording to be a "maximum" rather than an "absolute"?
  183. Dec 24 18:49:55 <Ghant> yes, but the other one
  184. Dec 24 18:50:00 <Kronreich> No
  185. Dec 24 18:52:19 <Ghant> here
  186. Dec 24 18:52:19 <Ghant> “The existence of certain types of nations which by reasonable standards are unrealistic in an MT setting are strictly prohibited. The first is the so called ‘dream nation,’ which is fairly self-explanatory. A country where there are only strengths and no weaknesses, one that has unrivaled and an incorrigible position within the region, where all people have wealth and no one is lacking for want. Such nations ar
  187. Dec 24 18:52:19 <Ghant> e, by imagination, personal power fantasies that exist to be wanked by the player for personal satisfaction.
  188. Dec 24 18:52:19 <Ghant>
  189. Dec 24 18:52:19 <Ghant> The second is the so called ‘vindication nation’ (which is not mutually exclusive with the ‘dream country’). This type of nation is one where all citizens are united behind one unifying national ideology without any internal dissent whatsoever...one where the citizens of the nation are all of a same mind, which may or may not reflect the preferences of the nation player (which is often the case). The purpose
  190. Dec 24 18:52:19 <Ghant> of this nation, like the previous, is to fulfill the fantasies of the player, and not to facilitate dynamic roleplay.
  191. Dec 24 18:52:19 <Ghant> The Arbitration Board may review nations to ensure that they are in compliance with these prohibitions. Should the board determine that said nation is in violation, it will be given one month’s time to become in compliance. Failure to do so after that will result in the nation being deemed non-canon. Additional action is at the discretion of the Founder and Delegate.”
  192. Dec 24 18:54:29 <Kronreich> Right away, I'm going to say this: We need a FS that is clear and direct, both in phrasing and formatting. Less bloat, more streamlining should be the policy.
  193. Dec 24 18:54:42 <Ghant> That's the plan
  194. Dec 24 18:55:11 <Ghant> But the other issue is that there's little that protects the functionality of the RP environment.
  195. Dec 24 18:55:34 <Ghant> Occam's Razor. If something can go wrong, it will, unless it is prohibited.
  196. Dec 24 18:59:17 <Kronreich> With regard to the amendment itself, I don't know if putting nations under review to determine if they're "suitable" is necessarily a needed measure, nor is it really an "inclusive" measure to those who want their nations to be different. I'd say, with the current ways that situations like this could be handled (personal right to "ignore" nations that you feel don't support RPing in the region, delegate intervention, etc),
  197. Dec 24 18:59:17 <Kronreich> that this amendment isn't necessarily one to have.
  198. Dec 24 19:01:12 <Ghant> THe problem is that such broken nations can impact the regional canon
  199. Dec 24 19:01:14 <Ghant> And break it
  200. Dec 24 19:01:18 <Kronreich> Not everything needs to be legislated. We have a delegate, a founder, and an arb board that can make case-by-case decisions regarding these things. Not to mention, with no offense to you as I can understand where this is coming from, it's very obvious that this amendment is, at least partly, directed at Baclow.
  201. Dec 24 19:01:22 <Ghant> Because there's a "regional canon"
  202. Dec 24 19:01:27 <Ghant> That all canon nations effect.
  203. Dec 24 19:02:01 <Ghant> Well Baclow is one example of a broken nation that isn't RPed in the spirit of the RP fabric.
  204. Dec 24 19:02:04 <Ghant> And ruins it.
  205. Dec 24 19:03:01 <Ghant> This basically gives legitimate grounds for someone to present an objection with citeable criteria
  206. Dec 24 19:03:24 <Kronreich> The amendment's "examples" basically describe his nation, and it's apparent that this is intentional. I will reiterate what I said: We need a clear, streamline FS. Legislating things that can already be presented and ruled by the delegate and founder are only adding more bloat to it.
  207. Dec 24 19:04:45 <Ghant> What this amendment does is make official what a player cannot do within the RP environment. If such an amendment isn't implemented, other instances of this abuse will occur.
  208. Dec 24 19:06:52 <Kronreich> Abuses are brought up to the delegate and arb board already, are they not?
  209. Dec 24 19:10:17 <Ghant> Yes, but this would avoid that by establishing ground rules so it wouldn't reach that point.
  210. Dec 24 19:13:34 <Kronreich> And who would be enforcing these ground rules? The delegate and arb board? So, the matters would be brought up to them anyway, and we have more bloat in the FS. I don't understand what this amendment does for the RP in the region that can't be handled, already, by the bodies the FS currently invests determining power into.
  211. Dec 24 19:14:57 <Ghant> add it to the bylaws then
  212. Dec 24 19:14:58 <Kronreich> I do not see this amendment as useful, and I cannot support it when we have a goal of increasing the clarity of and reducing the amount of unnecessary and/or redundant items in the FS.
  213. Dec 24 19:16:28 <Malay> I
  214. Dec 24 19:16:31 <Malay> I've gtg
  215. Dec 24 19:16:39 <Malay> I'll talk to you lot later. Happy holidays.
  216. Dec 24 19:16:47 «--- Malay (Mibbit@c-24-6-197-73.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has Quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  217. Dec 24 19:16:47 »» Notify: Malay is offline (EsperNet).
  218. Dec 24 19:17:03 <Kronreich> I have to go as well.
  219. Dec 24 19:17:37 <Kronreich> Ghant, I understand the intentions, but cannot support the amendment.
  220. Dec 24 19:18:05 «--- Kronreich (~Kronreich@107.191.1.113.static.utbb.net) has Quit (Quit: Quit)
  221. **** ENDING LOGGING AT Thu Dec 24 19:57:28 2015
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement
Public Pastes
Advertisement
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!