http://dotnomic.wikidot.com/
I don't personally have time to keep up with any forum-based nomics,
but I recommend that H. Ambassador BobTHJ recognize it per Rule 2185.
I've configured Zenith to run nightly database dumps. The CotC DB
is ~3MB, the others are both under 50K. (Don't worry about DoSing
it; it's been serving ~2GB per month for a while now, due to hosting
a Java version of Chrononauts after the author's site died. Actually,
it got up to ~10GB in Feb
comex wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> comex wrote:
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]
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:13 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If we were to accept a broader definition of "action by announcement":
>> then if a rule stated "A player who has publicly posted an odd number
>> of Es
On Thursday 24 July 2008 09:25:08 pm ihope wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote: I try one more time, and then give up if i fail
> >
> >> Without 3 objections I intend to chagne th
On Wednesday 23 July 2008 06:01:27 pm comex wrote:
> Hmm... it would be nice if you could release some sort of periodic
> database dump for us to play with.
Seconded.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we were to accept a broader definition of "action by announcement":
> then if a rule stated "A player who has publicly posted an odd number
> of Es in eir messages within the current Agoran Month is a Foo, and
> other p
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>>> 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
comex wrote:
>> 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+
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 16:41, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2112
>
> == CFJ 2112 ==
>
>Publishing the message "I object", in response to an attempt to
>perform a dep
Proto-Judgement of CFJs 2091-92:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These are linked assignments.
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2091
>
> = Criminal Case 2091 =
>
>Quazie viola
Sgeo wrote:
> According to rule 2125, if someone is a recordkeepor of something,
> that stuff cannot be changed except as allowed by the rules. Contracts
> are not the rules. Therefore, contracts can't allow changing stuff for
> which they define a recordkeepor..
Assets are covered by Rule 2166's
Sgeo wrote:
> How did everyone else get barred from this?
Parties to the contract in question.
> Also, what's the precedent for recordkeeper v. recordkeepor?
Equivalent per Rule 754 (1). That said, the rules explicitly define
some things as having recordkeepors, but not others.
root wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Elliott Hird
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> This is your first post, right?
> >>
> >> I can't see anything else by you in the logs.
> >>
> >> If so, do you know what Agora N
According to rule 2125, if someone is a recordkeepor of something,
that stuff cannot be changed except as allowed by the rules. Contracts
are not the rules. Therefore, contracts can't allow changing stuff for
which they define a recordkeepor..
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How did everyone else get barred from this?
>
Also, what's the precedent for recordkeeper v. recordkeepor?
How did everyone else get barred from this?
OscarMeyr and Sgeo are both sitting.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 09:57, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/7/27 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> The action in question clearly could not have been taken through email. As
>>> the Defendant has not
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/27 Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The action in question clearly could not have been taken through email. As
>> the Defendant has not attempted to eliminate the subject, the attempted
>> action was false.
20 matches
Mail list logo
