root wrote:
On 9/12/07, Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I am not a player then I register as a player. (Do such conditionals work?)
Traditionally no, apart from conditional votes, which are explicitly
legislated. However, it is customary to allow it in cases such as
this where the resul
On 9/12/07, Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I am not a player then I register as a player. (Do such conditionals work?)
Traditionally no, apart from conditional votes, which are explicitly
legislated. However, it is customary to allow it in cases such as
this where the resulting game state
On 9/11/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 favou
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
