On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> > Proposal: Who needs ribbons (AI = 2, II = 2)
> >
> > [Because since the establishment of the rule nobody has ever won by
> > Renaissance
> > and players do not seem to go out of their way to earn ribbons most of
> thes
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Proposal: Who needs ribbons (AI = 2, II = 2)
>
> [Because since the establishment of the rule nobody has ever won by
> Renaissance
> and players do not seem to go out of their way to earn ribbons most of these
> achievements are already awarded with notesand the number of w
comex wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> with this text:
>>
>> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
>> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
>> and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> with this text:
>
> Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
> announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
> and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
> it, or that e
Billy Pilgrim wrote:
> Indeed. Another thing, from B experience, that this should probably
> spell out is how what time an action takes place at is actually
> specified. Otherwise, things like "one second after X happens" or, more
> problematic, "one second before X happens", can be quite problema
ehird wrote:
> 2009/4/21 Ed Murphy :
>> Well, that and questions about the physical possibility
>> of something occurring 10^-100 seconds after something else.
>
> happy walrus?
Ye-es.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 14:21 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Ed Murphy
> wrote:
> > > Proposal: Scheduled actions
> >
> > This should probably explicitly spell out the order that actions occur
> > in the event
2009/4/21 Ed Murphy :
> Well, that and questions about the physical possibility
> of something occurring 10^-100 seconds after something else.
happy walrus?
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> That's what "integral number of seconds after midnight" is intended
> to prevent.
Hmm? That's not in your proposal.
> Well, that and questions about the physical possibility
> of something occurring 10^-100 seconds after something else.
Well,
On Oct 20, I wrote:
> Ah, a Bayes title so good I had to make a proto around it. Maybe it
> wouldn't be a good idea to do this immediately, but let us explore the
> corner cases of Caste first; on the other hand, if people don't like
> Caste, this might be something interesting to replace it with.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> AGAINST because I think it's broken: if you're going to do this,
>> explicitly legislate conditional actions instead of the current mess
>> of precedents (and get rid of the conditional voting rule) so we know
>> exactly what sort of conditional
comex wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Proposal: Scheduled actions
>> (AI = 3, please)
>>
>> [Not everyone has access to a server with both cron and mail-sending
>> capability. This would allow for things like "At 23:59:59 UTC, if my
>> caste is Alpha, then I spend
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> c) SHALL award and revoke points as explicitly described
> in its contract (subject to the above limits), or as needed
> to counteract a specified award/revocation not explicitly
> described in its contract o
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 01:42 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
>> (I'm not sure about how weeks are counted: it's a new calendar week
>> since I last published an NoV, but it hasn't been 7 days)
>
> The rule is that officers must publish a high-prior
On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 16:12 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 01:42 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> >> (I'm not sure about how weeks are counted: it's a new calendar week
> >> since I last published an NoV, but it hasn't bee
On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 14:21 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Proposal: Scheduled actions
>
> This should probably explicitly spell out the order that actions occur
> in the event multiple actions are scheduled at the same time and the
> order i
On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 01:42 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> (I'm not sure about how weeks are counted: it's a new calendar week
> since I last published an NoV, but it hasn't been 7 days)
The rule is that officers must publish a high-priority report at least
once in each week. So publishing Monday
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> If there are no accepted nominations, doesn't the office just become empty?
No. The outcome of the election is and nothing happens.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> > I'm still waiting on Wooble to accept his nominations for Tailor and
> > Accountor.
>
> I didn't even notice I'd been nominated. If no one else consents, I'll
> keep the offices b
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Scheduled actions
> (AI = 3, please)
>
> [Not everyone has access to a server with both cron and mail-sending
> capability. This would allow for things like "At 23:59:59 UTC, if my
> caste is Alpha, then I spend to reduce it" to be
Wooble wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Proposal: Scheduled actions
>
> This should probably explicitly spell out the order that actions occur
> in the event multiple actions are scheduled at the same time and the
> order is significant.
I was planning to wait for
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Scheduled actions
This should probably explicitly spell out the order that actions occur
in the event multiple actions are scheduled at the same time and the
order is significant.
Granted this might be a problem even without schedule
2009/4/21 Geoffrey Spear :
> Your contributions certainly put you in an excellent position to criticize em.
Idling is not comparable.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I'm still waiting on Wooble to accept his nominations for Tailor and
> Accountor.
I didn't even notice I'd been nominated. If no one else consents, I'll
keep the offices by default.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
> > Getting Dvorak to do anything but vote? ha!
>
> Your contributions certainly put you in an excellent position to criticize
> em.
>
I'm still waiting on Wooble to accept his nominat
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> Getting Dvorak to do anything but vote? ha!
Your contributions certainly put you in an excellent position to criticize em.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Clearly you've never rowed crew; not too far off, tho by disciplined
> dropping down to the lower speed, the added power would probably put you
> somewhere in between. -G.
Obviously the time you'd waste instructing the worse rowers in proper
27 matches
Mail list logo
