Recent Posts
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Mar 23, 2013 17:47:08 GMT
oop anonymouscensor is messed up
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Mar 23, 2013 17:45:16 GMT
Technically, the superball, fireworks, spark, vine, ant, and laser balls can still be made. Who knows: there might be a new elemental ball.
Probably a new element though.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Feb 19, 2013 6:10:34 GMT
Intertwine-esque ball course. Also considered calling it "Predator and Prey" or something along the lines of that, but I feel like the ball is playing around with the laser more often than not. Done in 7 hours. I was bored today. I'm on vacation, but have nothing to do and nowhere to go. The ball frequently moves ahead of the laser XD the laser has to skip a lot of it in order to catch up. The cool thing about this is because there's no glass, the laser is totally dependable and it's impossible for the course to fail. Unless, of course, the laser didn't hit the firework at the end. Which would be pretty sad...
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Dec 24, 2012 21:51:03 GMT
I'd like to upload, but considering the lateness of my reply, I think it may be obvious that I am required in other places as well. I'm also uninspired, so I don't have any brilliant ideas to upload. Best I can do is chain reaction or ball course right now.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Dec 24, 2012 21:46:22 GMT
BG-track? THIS CAN ONLY MEAN ONE THING. BALL COURSES.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Nov 23, 2012 17:43:38 GMT
Just letting you know, I didn't really die.
Erm, I kinda left for an unknown reason for an extended period. Without warning. Maybe I got bored or uninspired, or maybe I just don't have time. I took up a lot of other stuffs too.
I'll be around, but I won't be as active, I guess.
(does this belong more in the intro board!? i'm not new though, so i'll just leave it here)
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Feb 5, 2012 16:50:49 GMT
As do I. 12 seems a bit high for people
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Feb 4, 2012 1:30:36 GMT
It doesn't clear all noise and can be easily overcome by two adjacent noise dots. But still works and is a good update.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Feb 3, 2012 4:01:04 GMT
He botches his grammar, but can pwn noobs.
The SRCB is currently full of so many noobs that it's pathetic that many of then are troll targets; they still reply after I keep telling them what trolling is and that I am doing it to him...
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Feb 2, 2012 3:42:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 31, 2012 4:21:06 GMT
He's on our side.
The vast majority of people playing PG know nothing of the CBs.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 31, 2012 0:24:14 GMT
He did delete a comment once, but that could have been some ruse anyway. Bleh. I don't know anything much about this...
|
|
|
ACTA
Jan 31, 2012 0:23:20 GMT
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 31, 2012 0:23:20 GMT
K, so it's impossible to use sarcasm to inform someone.
So if it's SOPA all over again on an international scale, then GV needs to come and post his awesome textwalls for a reference.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 31, 2012 0:14:02 GMT
OHLOOKICANTUNDERSTANDAWORDYOURESAYINGWITHOUTCAREFULLYNITPICKINGEVERYWORDOUT
Long story: If you don't know how to play, don't post "omgzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz dis game so BORRRRRRRING!!!!!!!!!! we dont even haf SUPERPOWERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 imean so DUMMMMM!!!1" without even contributing when you can actually read the text. Because at this level, you look like a noob from the PGCB. THE FUCKING PGCB. Especially when the textwall you just posted took THE SAME TIME TO READ AS THE RULES RIGHT THERE IN YOUR FUCKING FACE. IF YOU ACTUALLY READ SOMETHING, MAYBE YOU WOULD REALIZE THAT YOU LOOK LIKE AN IMBECILE AND THAT NOBODY IS GOING TO READ THE RULES FOR YOU AND SUMMARIZE THEM SO YOU CAN LEARN HOW TO PLAY A BELGIUM-ING GAME YOU DON'T LIKE, JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO LAZY TO READ THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. TEN SENTENCES OF BELGIUM-ING ENGLISH. Short story: You look like an idiot. Shut up and leave.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 28, 2012 7:49:48 GMT
K, that one is satisfactory anyway. For summarizing what I did to the bills was clear stuff up, and also deleted relevancy of bills because Elton put it in the original rules. These are all that are left. Let'sa go (BTW, shouldn't Remaining Germane be up for vote?) Area: Creation of Bills Author: Anonymousperson5 Period: Indefinite Every bill following containing an earmark is considered null and void by this bill. Area: Creation of Amendments Author: Anonymousperson5 Period: Indefinite The amendment will clearly state that it is an amendent, as well as what law it amends in the title. If an amendment is passed, the old version is modified to show what changes have been made. A version to put in place of the original bill is to be clearly shown for the convenience of the Gamemaster. Additions are italicized. Strikeouts are for deletions. One may not amend a bill while a vote takes place, as this will restart the vote and make things more complicated. Amendments may occur before voting begins. These are not strict amendments, but more like revisions. A revision requires only the consent of the author to be incorporated. Area: Voting on Bills Author: mdog95, Anonymousperson5 Period: Indefinite A bill will be voted on over the course of five days. If less than five people have voted on the bill by the end of five days, the voting will be extended until five people vote on the bill. No amendments may be proposed during voting. If one still wishes to propose amendments he may create his own bill amending the original if and when the original passes. If and when the bill passes, it goes on to stage two where the moderator can veto, item veto, or pass the bill into law. The gamemaster has express jurisdiction over any bill, and any veto completely overrides all votes. In case of tiebreaks, the gamemaster will also act as a tiebreaker. Section: Amending Bills Author: Anonymousperson5 To combine two bills, the two are merged leaving a single one. The one who proposed the merge also submits a final copy of the merge as a bill. The merge is voted on normally. One must provide a reason for the merge, stated before the actual merge's spoiler. The merge can have its own title, but it must be followed by what bills it combines, e.g. "The passing of Laws, Voting On Bills+Creating Bills" (not that I support this, this would be very long) ...that is all. These are all the new versions and I agree to them. Remember to highlight any endorsements. Thank you and good day.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 28, 2012 2:53:36 GMT
Ok, I see now. Thx for clarifying. When I get back (I need to go soon), I will revise every bill to make it compatible with these rules. Clean slate. Then Elton can take them to the vote. I hope this gets off the ground soon.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 27, 2012 3:46:25 GMT
Oh, that people can override an amendment preceding a vote by 2/3s? Is that what you mean? As far as I can see it's the only thingy left. *edits*
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 27, 2012 2:28:16 GMT
You already have. Also, you could vote for Voting on Bills, because I didn't include that because it was updated slightly.
Screw the rules, we have 5 bills going to the vote, and our GAMEMASTER ISN'T F***ING CHECKING THE THREAD
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 26, 2012 23:48:58 GMT
Ah shoot. The bill Voting on Bills conflicts with the original rules. I'll amend it. This takes into consideration both; however, it still changes original rules. You see, the original rules say after 2 endorse, and mdog's say after three days. I've amended it to say three days after 2 endorse it. This will clear things up: The Bill has been edited to resolve discrepancies between original rules and this bill. Area: Voting on Bills Author: mdog95 Amenders: Anonymousperson5 Period: Indefinite A bill is only to be voted on after three days' time has passed since the last amendment has been voted on and two people endorse the newest version of the bill no more amendments are proposed. A proposed amendment will need only the author's consent to be incorporated, unless two-thirds of the community vote otherwise. If no amendments are proposed, the bill will be voted on three days after the bill is proposed. A bill will be voted on over the course of five days. If less than five people have voted on the bill by the end of five days, the voting will be extended until five people vote on the bill. No amendments may be proposed during voting. If one has missed the designated time to propose amendments (did not post at all on this thread during the three days), he may create his own bill amending the original if and when the original passes. Normal bills require a simple majority (50+% vote). If and when the bill passes, it goes on to stage two where the moderator can veto, item veto, or pass the bill into law. The gamemaster has express jurisdiction over any bill, and any veto completely overrides all votes. In case of tiebreaks, the gamemaster will also act as a tiebreaker. It is the gamemaster's responsibility to show dates of the stopping of voting. However, it is the duty of the author to state when the bill will be taken to voting. Dates are in DD/MM/YY to prevent confusion. I would also like to propose a bill. Section: Amending Bills Author: Anonymousperson5 To combine two bills, the two are merged leaving a single one. The one who proposed the merge also submits a final copy of the merge as a bill. The merge is voted on normally. One must provide a reason for the merge, stated before the actual merge's spoiler. The merge can have its own title, but it must be followed by what bills it combines, e.g. "The passing of Laws, Voting On Bills+Creating Bills" (not that I support this, this would be very long) The people must endorse only the newest version of the bill, thus the only bills that should be taken to vote are: Format of Bills, Remaining Germane, Rules for Amendments, Modifying Original Rules, Relevancy of Bills Under the original rules, they should be up for vote right now. ELTONEYES Y U NO UPDATE THREAD
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 26, 2012 14:32:30 GMT
He still did infringe. The term shouldn't have been that long though. Also, for those people qwerty mentioned, theres that news article about a man who stole a hundred dollar bill and got a 15-year term and a guy who stole millions of dollars but got a 3-month term. That doesn't mean their term should be lessened, it means the guys who did the disgusting things should get a much longer term than pirates...
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 26, 2012 3:03:13 GMT
Oh, I thought it was that he couldn't see. Never seen a transaction go by that quickly in 56 minutes only, and I thought this was furthered by the fact that you probably live on the opposite side of the world, and also by that you didn't post.
I apologize for thinking wrongly...
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 25, 2012 23:42:31 GMT
…wut I most definitely see them
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 25, 2012 14:33:42 GMT
It's a shame. This stuff is pretty cool. I guess some can still continue it if you wish...
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 24, 2012 23:25:29 GMT
...Dafuq
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 24, 2012 7:05:41 GMT
Okay, but remember that this is only concerning amendments BEFORE the vote, so it's just revisiond before being sent off to the vote. So I find it doesn't really make sense to require a vote to revise the bill. I suppose this is mainly for the second opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 24, 2012 5:03:38 GMT
I was afraid of that too.
Also, I believe that since it's your bill and it hasn't even been passed, I think that amendments made BEFORE the bill is voted on are allowed with only the consent of the Author; I have changed this accordingly and if you agree, then it will be incorporated.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 24, 2012 3:05:13 GMT
Screw the correct format. This is a lot easier and all we really need. Also, we don't really have a constitution. The closest thing we have is the original set of rules. The supreme court might be a bit biased any we can't afford to have people come off of this, so the Gamemaster should do this and this is just a veto anyway. I'd also like to propose an amendment to mdog's bill, Voting on Bills. This is only additions, you have my express support on this bill. The Bill has been expanded to include tiebreaks and the role of the Gamemaster. It has also been made more clear by the addition of returns. Area: Voting on Bills Author: mdog95 Amenders: Anonymousperson5 Period: Indefinite A bill is only to be voted on after three days' time has passed since the last amendment has been voted on and no more amendments are proposed. A proposed amendment will need only the author's consent to be incorporated. If no amendments are proposed, the bill will be voted on three days after the bill is proposed. A bill will be voted on over the course of five days. If less than five people have voted on the bill by the end of five days, the voting will be extended until five people vote on the bill. No amendments may be proposed during voting. If one has missed the designated time to propose amendments (did not post at all on this thread during the three days), he may create his own bill amending the original if and when the original passes. Normal bills require a simple majority (50+% vote). If and when the bill passes, it goes on to stage two where the moderator can veto, item veto, or pass the bill into law. The gamemaster has express jurisdiction over any bill, and any veto completely overrides all votes. In case of tiebreaks, the gamemaster will also act as a tiebreaker. It is the gamemaster's responsibility to show dates of the stopping of voting. However, it is the duty of the author to state when the bill will be taken to voting. Dates are in DD/MM/YY to prevent confusion. Will be taken to Voting 27/1/2012 at 2:04 AM FST.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 24, 2012 1:59:49 GMT
Cool game. I introduce 4 bills: Area: Creation of Bills Author: Anonymousperson5 Period: Indefinite The bills must be free of glaring grammatical errors. The bill is to be within spoiler tags, with the title in the spoiler's title. Quote this post to see how if you don't know. They must state what general area they influence, the author, and the period of influence. Then comes the actual body. Clauses within the body are to have a return between each other. Sections must have two. The Gamemaster will keep all approved bills in the first post for clarity, as well as the votes and author. Unapproved bills will appear in the first post as well, but in a different section as well as with a vote counter outside the spoilers. Area: Creation of Bills Author: Anonymousperson5 Period: Indefinite No earmarks, they are banished, and every bill following containing an earmark is considered null and void by this bill. Area: Creation of Amendments Author: Anonymousperson5 Period: Indefinite If an amendment occurs, it must solely be on its own, not included in another bill unless the passing of the other bill requires it. The amendment will clearly state what it amends. Amendments will still be voted separately even if included in another amendment. The amendment will state that it is an amendment in the title. A bill with an amendment included will state it includes an amendment in the title. If an amendment is passed, the old version is struck out and modified. A version to put in place of the original bill is to be clearly shown for the convenience of the Gamemaster. Additions are italicized. Strikeouts are for deletions. One may not amend a bill while a vote takes place, as this will restart the vote and make things more complicated. Amendments may occur before voting begins, by either the author or somebody else; in the event that somebody else wants to amend it, they need only the consent of the author. Area: Creation of Amendments Author: Anonymousperson5 Period: Indefinite Any bill that modifies original rules must have a 3/4ths majority rather than a 1/2 majority. That applies to this bill as well. An 80% vote is required to move on to the next phase. In modifying normal bills, a normal 50% rule applies.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 24, 2012 1:28:58 GMT
Nothing can be trusted on the internet... B)
Idk what my IQ is, and honestly don't care too much. It's only academic, not what true intelligence is about. Of course, it's difficult to define true intelligence in every aspect, and positively impossible to test it.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jan 24, 2012 1:23:55 GMT
It's very intriguing. I agree completely with Qwerty: I'd vote if I could look away from your avatar for a moment.
|
|
|