tusho wrote:
> 2008/7/25 Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Such language!
>
> Sorry. Was agitated IRL when typing.
>
>> A player joining will have zero VP. Not undefined, zero.
>
> I disagree. They're not bound by the contract defining VP.
Irrelevant. You can possess a contract-defined asset with
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I cfj on the following statement "If an entity is not elgible to own a
> particular type of asset, then they own zero of that asset"
>
> I argue true, though ehird seems to thing otherwise.
No need to CFJ on it, in my opinion. Th
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto-proto:
>
> Scale appeal judgements to make OVERRULE and AFFIRM only appropriate
> on a first appeal on matters of no controversy (such as when the judge
> admits they made an error in their judgment). Make REMAND more
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 05:53, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For all the current ways the PNP sends message there
>> is usually a clear (if tricky to identify) first-class person who
>> triggers the script t
On 26/07/2008, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I disagree. They're not bound by the contract defining VP.
>
> But once they join, they are bound by it, and their holdings are
> defined at that point.
Once they join - so they'll have had it for 0 days.
> How about adding a provision
On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:15 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/25 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I understand Larry Wall upgraded... and I forgot the -wT flags.
Perl 6 is semi-vaporware atm.
Then I'll have to go rough up my friendly local Perl guru and ACM
local chair. Fortunately, I'll
On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:12 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
A player joining will have zero VP. Not undefined, zero.
I disagree. They're not bound by the contract defining VP.
But once they join, they are bound by it, and their holdings are
defined at that point.
How about adding a provision that
2008/7/25 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I understand Larry Wall upgraded... and I forgot the -wT flags.
Perl 6 is semi-vaporware atm.
>>> Use Agora.pm;
>>> Use Agora/ROoA.pm;
>>
>> Invalid syntax in either 5 or 6
>
> Does Perl not need the ; after a Use line?
It's "use", and you omit t
2008/7/25 Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Such language!
Sorry. Was agitated IRL when typing.
> A player joining will have zero VP. Not undefined, zero.
I disagree. They're not bound by the contract defining VP.
tusho
On Jul 25, 2008, at 6:43 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
2008/7/25 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
#! /usr/bin/perl6
Perl 6?
I understand Larry Wall upgraded... and I forgot the -wT flags.
Use Agora.pm;
Use Agora/ROoA.pm;
Invalid syntax in either 5 or 6
Does Perl not need the ; after a U
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bullcrap. They don't HAVE a quantity of VP.
Such language! A player joining will have zero VP. Not undefined, zero.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unkn
2008/7/25 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> #! /usr/bin/perl6
Perl 6?
> Use Agora.pm;
> Use Agora/ROoA.pm;
Invalid syntax in either 5 or 6
> IF (milling 4 * 8 produces an X crop) == TRUE # otherwise refigure the
> modulo 11 multiplication
Not even Perl any more.
> {
> I mill 4 * 8 into an X
2008/7/25 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I object. Players joining the Vote Market for the first time are
> automatically in violation with this.
>
Bullcrap. They don't HAVE a quantity of VP.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 15:16, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposals:
[snip]
> Create a rule titled "Grand Poobah" with Power=2 and the text:
> {{
> Create a rule titled "The Grand Poobah" with Power 2 and this text:
Oops?
-woggle
2008/7/25 Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 5657 O1 1.5 comex enough already?
> FORx5
>
note - it's democratic
2008/7/25 Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I intend with the majority consent of the Dons to transfer chits from
> the Protection Racket to the Dons as follows:
>
> tusho - 100 Chits
> Wooble - 100 Chits
> BobTHJ - 100 Chits
>
> BobTHJ
>
I consent.
Proto-proto:
Scale appeal judgements to make OVERRULE and AFFIRM only appropriate
on a first appeal on matters of no controversy (such as when the judge
admits they made an error in their judgment). Make REMAND more
appropriate than REASSIGN except in the most controversial of cases,
or when reque
Proto-Proposal: Clarify REMAND vs REASSIGN
AI1.7
Amend rule 911 by replacing the text:
* REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the
appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes
that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2048a: I support woggle's intent to send the message below. The
> required support having been achieved, I send this message on behalf
> of the panel:
>
> {
> As Taral has not cited the precedent on which apparently eir judgm
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BobTHJ wrote:
>
>> I intend, on behalf of the panel to submit a judgment of REMAND with
>> instructions for the judge to consider the possibility of CFJ 2019
>> being submitted by Quazie.
>
> I'll support this if it also instr
BobTHJ wrote:
> I intend, on behalf of the panel to submit a judgment of REMAND with
> instructions for the judge to consider the possibility of CFJ 2019
> being submitted by Quazie.
I'll support this if it also instructs the judge to consider Zefram's
arguments (Quazie did not intend to submit C
2008/7/25 Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There's a point. The point is, I'm greedy and want to win.
>
Yeah. That really makes me want to do things in your favour.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/25 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I agree to the following contract:
>>
>> {
>> This is a public contract called "The Losing Team".
>> Any first-class player may join this contract by announcement. Any
>> party to thi
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I stop agreeing to the contract called "The Winning Team"
>
> I hereby initiate a criminal CFJ with Sgeo as the defendant, alleging
> e violated Rule 174
24 matches
Mail list logo
