On 8/5/19 1:35 AM, James Cook wrote:
Our business being concluded, I cease being a party to the contract
called "Space Shenanigans 2: Electric Boogaloo". Thanks, Jason Cobb!
No problem! :)
(I'm trying not to lose track of what contracts I'm a party to. I
*think* there are now none.)
I've
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 04:55, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 9:51 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 14:53, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > > On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > > > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
> > > > contest:
>
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 9:51 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 14:53, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
> > > contest:
> > >
> > > {
> > >
> > > I dedicate this rule to ARCAS.
> > >
>
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 14:53, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
> > contest:
> >
> > {
> >
> > I dedicate this rule to ARCAS.
> >
> > Every new rule must be dedicated to exactly one Agoran God, called
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 04:02, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 8/5/19 12:01 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> > Btw jason u made a tactical error in getting the fame first bc now the
> > other lad can wait u out and assure themselves the speakership with intent
> > reaolution
>
> Cool.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
We could just
On 8/5/19 12:01 AM, Rebecca wrote:
Btw jason u made a tactical error in getting the fame first bc now the
other lad can wait u out and assure themselves the speakership with intent
reaolution
Cool.
--
Jason Cobb
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 11:35 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 03:38, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > 2. Variety. Contributions that move things in a new direction shall be
> >rewarded. Contributions that merely repeat things that have come
> >before shall be punished. Remember th
Btw jason u made a tactical error in getting the fame first bc now the
other lad can wait u out and assure themselves the speakership with intent
reaolution
On Monday, August 5, 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 8/4/19 11:38 PM, James Cook wrote:
>
>> I will spend 1 energy in this space battle.
>>
>>
On 8/4/19 10:34 PM, James Cook wrote:
I will spend 0 energy in this space battle.
- Falsifian
NttPF.
--
Jason Cobb
On Sun., Aug. 4, 2019, 18:33 Jason Cobb, wrote:
> On 8/4/19 10:32 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > I will spend 0 energy in this space battle.
> >
> > - Falsifian
>
> I cause G. to resolve the Space Battle between Jason Cobb and Falsifian
> as follows:
> {
> Jason Cobb wins this Space Battle.
> Jason Co
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 23:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If the proposal created a power 3.1 rule that said "nch is registered"
> then we could use rule 1030, but that's not what the clause does.
I think at this point it would only save nch one week, so I don't know
if I will bother submitting this. But
On 8/4/2019 5:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Side-note: I'm not sure that I understand the cable metaphor. How does one
> "transmit" a cable?
Cable (verb)
contact or send a message to (someone) by cablegram.
Cable (noun, lesser meaning)
a cablegram, abbrev.
"we cabled to a boat at sea, asking
A person (the Transmitter) CAN transmit a Cable
You capitalize "Cable" here, but nowhere else, similarly for
"Transmitter", and "Hash".
Side-note: I'm not sure that I understand the cable metaphor. How does
one "transmit" a cable?
The delivery is SUCCESSFUL, and the cable is cons
- Just fixing the hash method at SHA-256, full-stop, dropped a bunch of
text.
- replacing "hashed communication" to "cable", and changing the terms-of-art
to go with the "sending a cable" metaphor, makes it shorter and seems to
read better (and avoids the overloaded term "communication").
Crea
On 8/4/2019 3:21 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> I'd say just enumerate the acceptable algorithms. You could probably just
> start with SHA256 - it's secure and easy to find calculators for online.
lol sure I suppose there's no point in coming up with an elegantly-crafted
general definition (as pretty
On 8/4/19 6:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 8/4/2019 3:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 8/4/19 6:09 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2019-08-04 at 14:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[* do we need to define what a "hash method" is or is that in
common-enough use to leave to common definitions?
On 8/4/2019 3:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 8/4/19 6:09 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2019-08-04 at 14:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[* do we need to define what a "hash method" is or is that in
common-enough use to leave to common definitions?]
Fun though it would be to scam this
On 8/4/19 6:09 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2019-08-04 at 14:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[* do we need to define what a "hash method" is or is that in
common-enough use to leave to common definitions?]
Fun though it would be to scam this myself, in the spirit of "catch
loopholes
On Sun, 2019-08-04 at 14:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [* do we need to define what a "hash method" is or is that in
> common-enough use to leave to common definitions?]
Fun though it would be to scam this myself, in the spirit of "catch
loopholes rather than exploit them": the common definition
Proto: Ansible
Summary:
By requiring the initiator of a space battle to publish a hash of eir energy
value when initiating the battle, we speed up the process, simplify the rule
because we don't need to talk about multiple methods of private
communication, and one officer (the Astronomor) can
On 8/4/19 2:53 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
This rule is dedicated to INTERCAL, the most esoteric of all the gods.
Fie on thee, 0x44, thou fugitive!
To each new fantasy rule, please allow a file to be attached, which file
shall contain the ASCII art of exactly one animal which shall be sacrificed.
Also - it's not even clear if this will work. Even if you profess to
deputize, what happens when someone sends me a private message and you don't
get it...
for some additional context - I'll be on vacation from Aug 8 - Aug 28. I
was trying to decide whether to keep Arbitor and assume I could
On 8/4/2019 12:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Thanks for the heads-up, but I will resign as assessor...
Er, "arbitor", my brain still autocompletes offices starting with 'a' with
'ssessor' even though 'arbitor' has been around a few years now...
Thanks for the heads-up, but I will resign as assessor and PM as an
alternate - I really don't want to have to deal with this (even via
contract).
I was actually working on a proto to take the other offices out of the space
loop - I really don't like the imposition of wholly unrelated tasks on
On 8/4/2019 10:24 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 8/4/19 1:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> In R1551:
>>the gamestate is modified to what it would be if,
>> at the time the ratified document was published ...
>>
>> (later it says "if" the document has a different time the
On 8/4/19 1:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
In R1551:
the gamestate is modified to what it would be if,
at the time the ratified document was published ...
(later it says "if" the document has a different time then the
publication
date, use that instead. otherwise, the
On 8/4/2019 10:17 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
So, if I'm correct, this may be a fairly serious bug, but only if people do
what I did and don't put the date in their self-ratifying reports.
I think that if a report fails to state when it is true, then when it is
self-ratified, it becomes true at th
On 8/4/19 1:17 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
So, if I'm correct, this may be a fairly serious bug, but only if
people do what I did and don't put the date in their self-ratifying
reports.
I think that if a report fails to state when it is true, then when it
is self-ratified, it becomes true at the ti
So, if I'm correct, this may be a fairly serious bug, but only if people
do what I did and don't put the date in their self-ratifying reports.
I think that if a report fails to state when it is true, then when it is
self-ratified, it becomes true at the time that it is ratified, rather
than at
On 8/4/2019 9:54 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Other option, after reading more thoroughly: I think the later CFJ is
> more
> correct, personally - you could just assume that that one overruled the
> previous and see if anyone *else* wants to CFJ that. Depends on which
> one you (as Officer) think
On 8/4/2019 9:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 8/4/2019 9:15 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Yay, directly contradictory judgements.
>
> R2576 has never changed, so there's no reason for this contradiction, or to
> think that either judgement would be invalidated between the time it was
> issued and n
On 8/4/2019 9:15 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Yay, directly contradictory judgements.
>
> R2576 has never changed, so there's no reason for this contradiction, or to
> think that either judgement would be invalidated between the time it was
> issued and now.
>
> I don't know how I'm supposed to deal
On 8/4/19 3:01 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 06:42, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 8/4/19 2:38 AM, Rebecca wrote:
COE: I am not a player, so I dont own a spaceship. You also have to delete
a sector for me and for nch.
Accepted.
Revision: What was R. Lee's spaceship is currently possesse
On 8/4/19 11:29 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Each worshiper must understand that only the AGORAN GODS, and, by
extensions, their PHYSICAL EMBODIMENT, Eir Supreme Eminence, and, that
in order to satisfy the AGORAN GODS enough to enforce their rules,
each Novel Paragraph must once contain the word "PLEA
On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
contest:
{
I dedicate this rule to ARCAS.
Every new rule must be dedicated to exactly one Agoran God, called the
rule's Patron God. The Patron God must have been mentioned in a previous
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 2:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Please reply to this thread to indicate interest in judging.
>
> We've had people favor cases lately that are technically "uninterested" by
> my tracking, and also people technically "interested" dropping cases. So
> time for a refresh.
>
>
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 05:45, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:31 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > On 8/4/19 1:23 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > >Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
> > >Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 05:23, James Cook wrote:
>
> > Okay, a few things.
> >
> > * Defining “unconditional announcement” is probably overkill; any sane
> > judge would arrive at that that anyway, and it adds a bit to bloat.
> > * You should probably say "Roshambo Score is an integer player switch"
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 06:42, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 8/4/19 2:38 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> > COE: I am not a player, so I dont own a spaceship. You also have to delete
> > a sector for me and for nch.
> >
> Accepted.
>
> Revision: What was R. Lee's spaceship is currently possessed by the Lost
> and Fo
39 matches
Mail list logo
