Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We play on the internet after all

2007-09-11 Thread Ed Murphy
Wooble wrote: On 9/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The only textual file format that is reliably legible is text/plain with strict ASCII. We have done very well by keeping our game documents in this format. I'd favour legislation requiring it. I'd definitely support that. I can't

DIS: Re: BUS: Poll on CFJ 1741

2007-09-11 Thread Ed Murphy
root wrote: So I'm going to poll the players and watchers: Upon first seeing Peekee's message, were you able to understand it within a reasonable amount of effort? If so, was a knowledge of HTML required? Yes. No, Thunderbird automatically Did The Right Thing (tm). I'm generally familiar w

DIS: Re: BUS: Poll on CFJ 1741

2007-09-11 Thread comex
On 9/11/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So I'm going to poll the players and watchers: Upon first seeing > Peekee's message, were you able to understand it within a reasonable > amount of effort? If so, was a knowledge of HTML required? As with other players, I was able to read it in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We play on the internet after all

2007-09-11 Thread Zefram
Geoffrey Spear wrote: >I can't think of a situation where someone capable of communicating by >email in English would *need* to communicate in anything but plain >ASCII text. There is no such need. Where non-ASCII characters would otherwise be natural, there are substitutes of varying levels of s

DIS: Re: BUS: Poll on CFJ 1741

2007-09-11 Thread Zefram
Ian Kelly wrote: >So I'm going to poll the players and watchers: Upon first seeing >Peekee's message, were you able to understand it within a reasonable >amount of effort? If so, was a knowledge of HTML required? As I said earlier, it first appeared to me as HTML source. I manually passed it th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We play on the internet after all

2007-09-11 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On 9/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The only textual file format that is reliably legible > is text/plain with strict ASCII. We have done very well by keeping our > game documents in this format. I'd favour legislation requiring it. I'd definitely support that. I can't think of a si

DIS: Re: BUS: Poll on CFJ 1741

2007-09-11 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On 9/11/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So I'm going to poll the players and watchers: Upon first seeing > Peekee's message, were you able to understand it within a reasonable > amount of effort? If so, was a knowledge of HTML required? I'm using Gmail too, so like you and BobTHJ I co

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We play on the internet after all

2007-09-11 Thread Zefram
Ian Kelly wrote: >Even in the archives, it is obviously HTML, and it is an easy task to >copy and paste the message into an HTML file and view it. That's where CFJ 1580 comes in. The message there was obviously base64, so decoding it required a similar amount of effort to the situation here. The

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We play on the internet after all

2007-09-11 Thread Roger Hicks
On 9/11/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/11/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Even in the archives, it is obviously HTML, and it is an easy task to > copy and paste the message into an HTML file and view it. > > -root > Should understanding HTML be a prerequisite to play

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We play on the internet after all

2007-09-11 Thread Ian Kelly
On 9/11/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Should the archives have precedential status, even if not official? > > Read it through: > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-September/007448.html > > If it can't be read from the archives, should that tell tha

DIS: Re: BUS: We play on the internet after all

2007-09-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
root wrote: > Well-formed or not, the message rendered perfectly for me (albeit in > Gmail, which is probably to be expected). Should the archives have precedential status, even if not official? Read it through: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-September/00

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: We play on the internet after all

2007-09-11 Thread Peekee
Well-formed or not, the message rendered perfectly for me (albeit in Gmail, which is probably to be expected). If google says it is correct then it is correct. -- Peekee

DIS: Re: BUS: We play on the internet after all

2007-09-11 Thread Ian Kelly
On 9/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gratuitous arguments: > > CFJ 1580 is a useful precedent here: it ruled that players cannot be > expected to decode base64 on their own, so a message relying on such > decoding might be ineffective for unclarity. However, it also ruled > that base64

DIS: Re: BUS: We play on the internet after all

2007-09-11 Thread Roger Hicks
On 9/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peekee wrote: > >I make the following CFJ: > > > >Peekee is a player. > > Gratuitous arguments: > > CFJ 1580 is a useful precedent here: it ruled that players cannot be > expected to decode base64 on their own, so a message relying on such > decoding

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Movement

2007-09-11 Thread Zefram
Ed Murphy wrote: >At one point, there was something like a 10x10 grid that was tied into >the economy, rather than directly into the basic actions. That's more interesting, if geometrical relationships mean anything. >variation of the Herbs proto, assigning VCs to locations and forming >more comp