On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> 5658 D1 2 Murphy Generalize panels
AGAINST
> 5659 D1 3 Murphy Let recordkeepers disambiguate
AGAINST-- this is too powerful in a Rule
> 5660 O1 1 comex Even objecting and voting should be unam...
PRESENT (ineffective)
> 5661 D1 2 comex Conscientious objectors
FOR
> 5662 O1 1 BobTHJ PRS Changes
AGAINST*3
> 5663 O1 1.5 Murphy Clarify contract creation
AGAINST*3
> 5664 D2 3 BobTHJ Chambers II
AGAINST
> 5665 O1 1.5 BobTHJ Hall of Champions
AGAINST*3 -- this is too much power for a system not well thought out.
I'd vote for this and the next one if it had a Power of, say, 0.5.
> 5666 O1 1 BobTHJ Proposal Auction
AGAINST*3
> 5667 O1 1.9 BobTHJ Some players are more equal than others
FOR*(lambda m:(lambda c:(lambda f:f(f,0,0,[0]*1000))(lambda
f,n,p,a:(('',a,n)) if p>=len(c) else ((lambda dc:dc[c[p]]() if c[p] in
dc.keys() else
f(f,n,p+1,a))({43:lambda:f(f,n,p+1,a[:n]+[(a[n]+1)%256]+a[n+1:]),45:lambda:f(f,n,p+1,a[:n]+[(a[n]-1)%256]+a[n+1:]),62:lambda:f(f,n+1,p+1,a),60:lambda:f(f,n-1,p+1,a),46:lambda:(lambda
v:(chr(a[n])+v[0],v[1],v[2]))(f(f,n,p+1,a)),91:lambda:(f(f,n,((lambda
g:g(g,p+1,1)) (lambda f,n,p:n if p==0 else f(f,n+1,p+1) if c[n]==91
else f(f,n+1,p-1) if c[n]==93 else f(f,n+1,p))),a)) if a[n]==0 else
((lambda v:(lambda w:(v[0]+w[0],w[1],w[2]))(f(f,v[2],p,v[1])))
(f(f,n,p+1,a))),93:lambda:('',a,n)})))[0])([ord(i) for i in
m]))('+++.')
