On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I retract all my votes on Proposals 5842-5941, and I vote FOR each of them.
Do you really think an equity judgment in the Artistry contract would
be worse than rewarding that spamathon? comex has blatantly ignored
eir
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:33:10 -0700
Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the statement, The proposal submitted by root at or around
Wed, 5 Nov 2008 22:03:48 UTC has been distributed.
Arguments:
The proposal was submitted with this title:
{{{
2001
A Space
On 6 Nov 2008, at 03:08, Roger Hicks wrote:
Whatever the case, I think Wooble and ehird's mousetrap was perfectly
fair. Perhaps the mousetrapped should have their CFJ rights preserved
(including equity) but beyond that I hold myself responsible for not
better monitoring the Protection Racket's
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 06:46, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to leave the Protection Racket agreement.
I transfer 50 coins to BobTHJ.
And if that failed, I PBA-deposit an X crop and then transfer 50
On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:11, Roger Hicks wrote:
otherwise I'm not sure if this multiple recordkeepor's thing is
going to work.
I don't recall advocating it, either.
On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:11, Roger Hicks wrote:
(NOTE: Ignore Wooble's transaction on my automated log. I entered it,
but it won't
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 08:11, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 06:46, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend to leave the Protection Racket agreement.
I transfer 50 coins to BobTHJ.
On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:18, Roger Hicks wrote:
Evidence - Wooble's first four transactions with the PBA (copied from
the current PBA log). According to the log, I have noted the number of
coins Wooble would have after each transaction:
2008-10-15 15:29 -- Wooble joins.
2008-10-15 15:29 -- Wooble
On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:37, Roger Hicks wrote:
I'm not sure either. Can we ratify the gamestate of the PBA to what my
report would show at 00:00 on Nov 6 (just prior to Wooble's most
recent transaction)? Then you can use whatever policy you wish going
forward (there should be no further direct
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 08:23, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm. That is weird indeed. See, this should work fine: the RBoA transactions
are
liberal but the rest are conservative, just like it's always been:
if target == 'RBoA':
while comrades[person] amount:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 08:18, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:11, Roger Hicks wrote:
I believe it is the conflict of the PBA's exactness-requirements and the
RBoA's
looseness. Perhaps the RBoA policy could change to require exactness for
cases like
these? IMO,
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 08:51, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:42, Roger Hicks wrote:
With the support of the people, I intend to ratify the coin holdings
and PBA exchange rates as of Nov 6 2008 00:01 (just after the daily
exchange rate change) as follows:
Um, you
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I support. With two support, I call an Emergency Session.
I intend to filibuster proposals 5842-5941 with two support.
I object.
The Emergency Rule exists to prevent Invasion;
but we are not being invaded.
Merely minorly
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Original Message
From: Tristan Glark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:29:44 +
Thank you for your
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:28 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I support. With two support, I call an Emergency Session.
I intend to filibuster proposals 5842-5941 with two support.
I object.
The Emergency Rule exists to
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I support. With two support, I call an Emergency Session.
I intend to filibuster proposals 5842-5941 with two support.
I object.
The Emergency Rule exists to prevent Invasion;
but we are
Original Message
From: Tristan Glark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:29:44 +
Thank you for your interest in the Aerican Empire. Having reviewed all
information available to
On 6 Nov 2008, at 16:21, Roger Hicks wrote:
A contract should be able to ratify its own internal gamestate using
whatever method it desires. However, if you think you can fix whatever
bug is causing this issue then I'll wait.
Yes, it was a knock-on effect of fixing a previous bug. Oops...
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:01, Ed Murphy wrote:
For the purpose of this message, to flip a Credit is to perform
the following actions if and only if it would result in a net
increase in my Coin holdings:
1) RBoA-withdraw a Credit of that pitch
2) PBA-deposit that Credit
3) RBoA-deposit the
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:06, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6 Nov 2008, at 16:21, Roger Hicks wrote:
A contract should be able to ratify its own internal gamestate using
whatever method it desires. However, if you think you can fix whatever
bug is causing this issue then I'll wait.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:09, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:01, Ed Murphy wrote:
For the purpose of this message, to flip a Credit is to perform
the following actions if and only if it would result in a net
increase in my Coin holdings:
1) RBoA-withdraw a
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:15, Roger Hicks wrote:
The AAA has treated this withdraw as a success since 10/22, so for
you to change it
now would require a complete re-calculation of the AAA, and
subsequently the RBOA, and
subsequently Vote Market, PRS, Note Exchange, etc.
Here I was thinking
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:18, Roger Hicks wrote:
I'm in agreement. This is a pain to work out from an automation
perspective.
Shoulda used Prolog.
--
ehird
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:18, Elliott Hird wrote:
Here I was thinking automated systems are good because they can
handle knock-on effects.
It's why I wrote mine, after all.
Worth noting: It's not even a change of policy. It's just the fixing
of a bug that would
have given Wooble something e
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:09, Elliott Hird wrote:
Unless you can give me a reasonable argument for this to be
accepted I'm treating it as
ineffective for not being clearly specified enough because if I
allow unrestricted
conditionals that would allow people to condition on turing
complete or
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:38, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:18, Elliott Hird wrote:
Here I was thinking automated systems are good because they can handle
knock-on effects.
It's why I wrote mine, after all.
Worth noting: It's not even a change of policy. It's
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) You state quite clearly on your site that you are a game which acts
like a nation. The Empire, not being a game, does not see how we could
recognise you as an equivalent state or nation.
Not a game? Could have fooled me...
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shoulda used Prolog.
Did you?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6 Nov 2008, at 01:13, Ian Kelly wrote:
I object to all dependent actions that were buried in comex's message
titled sheer cruelty (and lots of points).
There are none, as far as I can tell.
Same here. I ran it
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:00 AM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I transfer 5VP to Taral
You too, Taral.
Bah, hardly. I have significant investments at stake.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On 6 Nov 2008, at 18:14, Taral wrote:
Did you?
Y- no.
--
ehird
ehird wrote:
On 6 Nov 2008, at 17:01, Ed Murphy wrote:
For the purpose of this message, to flip a Credit is to perform
the following actions if and only if it would result in a net
increase in my Coin holdings:
1) RBoA-withdraw a Credit of that pitch
2) PBA-deposit that Credit
3)
BobTHJ wrote:
1. We need a unified gamestate, and we honestly can't afford to wait
for a four-day without objection ratification process to complete. We
need to decide on something and sync things up today, then ratify
that.
Proto-proto: Velocity is a contract switch, tracked by the Notary,
Proto: Failing transactions that are not noticed quickly enough still
affect rates
coin count, but you SHALL NOT do them.
--
ehird
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AGAINST, very much so. There are probably private pledges that existed
decades ago which I've never seen, that were published, and never
technically ended. This would force me to track them.
Pledges have only existed since
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And with necessary support, I filibuster 5842-5941.
I intend, with 4 supporting senators, to end these filibusters.
I post the following Sell Ticket:
* Cost: 15 VP
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:40 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And with necessary support, I filibuster
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 19:44 +, Alex Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:40 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:52 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
I agree to the following pledge/contract if ehird also does:
{
1. The name of this pledge / contract is the InterBank Reconciliation
Agreement
2. Upon the inception of this agreement, BobTHJ SHALL modify eir PBA
report to reflect the
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:54, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:52 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
I agree to the following pledge/contract if ehird also does:
{
1. The name of this pledge / contract is the InterBank Reconciliation
Agreement
2. Upon the inception of
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:31 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And with necessary support, I filibuster 5842-5941.
I intend, with 4 supporting senators, to end
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
My point is: the filibuster rule is not a dependent action, according to
rule 1728. Therefore, if it works at all, it works due to the ordinary
English meaning of what it says. with 2 supporting Senators is with 2
supporting Senators, no firstclassness
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is: the filibuster rule is not a dependent action, according to
rule 1728. Therefore, if it works at all, it works due to the ordinary
English meaning of what it says. with 2 supporting Senators is with 2
supporting
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
My point is: the filibuster rule is not a dependent action, according to
rule 1728. Therefore, if it works at all, it works due to the ordinary
English meaning of what it says. with 2 supporting
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:56, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All times in UTC.
Last update: 2008-11-06 19:55
My PBA report is now in sync with yours.
BobTHJ
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:31, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless you can give me a reasonable argument for this to be accepted
I'm treating it as
ineffective for not being clearly specified enough because if I allow
unrestricted
conditionals that would allow people to condition on
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, the fact it says with 2 supporting Senators not with
2 Senate Support is further evidence that it works that way; senate
Support would have been a much more sensible wording.
A difference in ... grammar ... is
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no more an ambiguity in meaning here than there is when
somebody announces I go on hold as opposed to I perform the action
'to go on old'.
Upon further reflection, I don't think any of these interpretations
fixes
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with 4 supporting senators, to end these filibusters.
Eh, why not? It's just points. I support all of these intents.
It's 1000 points per week...
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
As for the rules, the rules are the rules, and less flexible than
contracts.
And this is in those Rules:
(1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of
a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's 1000 points per week...
So points reset every week until it's fixed by a proposal. Problem?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
Upon further reflection, I don't think any of these interpretations
fixes anything. The default is with N first-class player supports.
This is with N Senator supports. Still allows second-class support.
R2124 makes non-first-class players incapable of
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no more an ambiguity in meaning here than there is when
somebody announces I go on hold as opposed to I perform the action
'to go on old'.
Upon further
On 6 Nov 2008, at 20:28, Roger Hicks wrote:
I resolve the above Bank Motion.
APPROVE
BobTHJ (2234)
Taral (2224)
DISAPPROVE
none
I hereby remove the RBOA's rate for Coins.
Umm... So much for that email I sent you.
--
ehird
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
Upon further reflection, I don't think any of these interpretations
fixes anything. The default is with N first-class player supports.
This is with N Senator supports. Still allows
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's 1000 points per week...
So points reset every week until it's fixed by a proposal. Problem?
Not really. (unless you're doing all that trading, massive devaluation?)
but we might as well
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
R2124 makes non-first-class players incapable of giving/expressing
support. Strangely enough, they can still perform the action, they
just can't be supporters of it. -Goethe
There may be cases when non-first-class players need to be able to
perform
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 12:45 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's 1000 points per week...
So points reset every week until it's fixed by a proposal. Problem?
Not really. (unless you're doing
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Winning is too easy right now. It's boring (again IMO).
Temporary setback. Patience is advised. This game has been running for
a lng time.
Oh I know, but it's run a long time due to
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 13:09 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Taral wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Winning is too easy right now. It's boring (again IMO).
Temporary setback. Patience is advised. This game has been running for
a
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 13:43, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6 Nov 2008, at 20:28, Roger Hicks wrote:
I resolve the above Bank Motion.
APPROVE
BobTHJ (2234)
Taral (2224)
DISAPPROVE
none
I hereby remove the RBOA's rate for Coins.
Umm... So much for that email I sent you.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Winning is too easy right now. It's boring (again IMO).
Temporary setback. Patience is advised. This game has been running for
a lng time.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
I think what actually happened is that wins by points became a lot more
common when I started trying for them; presumably, they would have
become a lot more common if someone else had started trying for them,
too.
I think after all this time it's not the
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
I suggest you cut down the max point limits on contests, probably the
easiest way. The problem is that until a while back, nobody had won by
points for ages, and all the contests doubled or quadrupled their
scoring, so points are plentiful nowadays.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't fix the fact that the scams I'm talking about are from
manipulating the contracts themselves, not from within-legitimate
contest points awards. For the latter, I don't begrudge any wins
certainly. Oh don't I
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 13:22 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
I suggest you cut down the max point limits on contests, probably the
easiest way. The problem is that until a while back, nobody had won by
points for ages, and all the contests doubled or
On 6 Nov 2008, at 21:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Per the AAA agreement, I attempt to award 4 points to Taral
pls to be condensing into single message
--
ehird
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest you cut down the max point limits on contests
Wasn't part of it that we were in Overtime?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 14:30, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6 Nov 2008, at 21:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Per the AAA agreement, I attempt to award 4 points to Taral
pls to be condensing into single message
Planning on it, just haven't had the chance yet. Also planning on
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
There's
a scam win by points which is still subject to CFJ (CFJ 2213, you're
assigned to it btw) too.
Oh, you lose. ;P.
[H. CotC, I may be a little late in judging this but I intend to later
by tomorrow after comments.]
The caller's argument hinges on the definition of action, however
there is another consideration.
R2192 says in part The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of the Monster to
take any action that
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[It's also possible to base this on an existence argument: What is a Rule?
In the most Platonic basic sense, a Rule is its text. If a Rule's text
doesn't say it may do something, doing that something is not part of
its
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:06 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The PNP supports all current intents to end a filibuster.
Note that this was only sent now for timing reasons. I'd much prefer
if one more real person supported this.
Proto-Proposal: Complex scoring
(AI = 2, please)
Amend Rule 2179 (Points) to read:
For each point axis:
a) axis Points is a fixed currency.
b) A player's axis coordinate is the number of axis points
e owns.
There are two point axes, X and Y. A player's
On Thursday 06 November 2008 12:39:25 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement: A passed proposal CAN flip a
switch to a value to which, by rule, the switch CANNOT be flipped.
trivially true, could be power difference
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 15:51, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Complex scoring
(AI = 2, please)
A little help for those of us who haven't looked at imaginary numbers
since high school. I recall that sqrt(-1) = i, but how do you
calculate sqrt(-p)?
BobTHJ
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 16:08 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 15:51, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proto-Proposal: Complex scoring
(AI = 2, please)
A little help for those of us who haven't looked at imaginary numbers
since high school. I recall that sqrt(-1) = i, but
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote:
sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b)
This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b).
--
ais523
I wrote:
Proposal: Expanded foreign relations
Before proceeding further with this effort, I should point out that
I am not Agora's Ambassador (Rule 2148 prohibits false claims on this
topic). That office is currently held by the PerlNomic Partnership,
a legal person whose charter can be
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 06 November 2008 12:39:25 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement: A passed proposal CAN flip a
switch to a value to which, by rule, the switch CANNOT be flipped.
trivially true, could be power
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In recognition of the recent and mostly-successful export of the
Monster to B Nomic, and in order to further enable trade relations
with B, the Recognition of B Nomic is hereby flipped to Friendly.
Not until they repeal Agoran
Pavitra wrote:
On Thursday 06 November 2008 12:39:25 pm Geoffrey Spear wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement: A passed proposal CAN flip a
switch to a value to which, by rule, the switch CANNOT be flipped.
trivially true, could be power difference
While sufficiently powerful proposals
2008/11/6 Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote:
sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b)
This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b).
--
Got it. So then, what is the absolute value of a complex number?
BobTHJ
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For each point axis, the total number of axis points a contest
CAN award in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its
members that are first-class players. axis points up to this
total CAN be
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/11/6 Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote:
sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b)
This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b).
--
Got it. So then, what is the absolute value of a complex
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 16:20 -0700, Roger Hicks wrote:
2008/11/6 Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote:
sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b)
This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b).
--
Got it. So then, what is the absolute value of a complex number?
The
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For each point axis, the total number of axis points a contest
CAN award in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its
members that are
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For each point axis, the total number of axis points a contest
CAN award in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its
members that are
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 16:22, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/11/6 Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 23:10 +, Alex Smith wrote:
sqrt(ab) = sqrt(a*b)
This should say sqrt(a*b) = sqrt(a)*sqrt(b).
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, should wins in such a system
be based on absolute value, or do players have to win completely in
one axis?
Using absolute value, a win in one axis requires 100 points in that
axis, but a balanced win in both axes is
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, should wins in such a system
be based on absolute value, or do players have to win completely in
one axis?
Using absolute value, a win in one axis requires
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
I proto-intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support, because it is
not Agoran custom to sandbox rules like this. Also, eir two
arguments are in conflict: if one Rule specifically permits someone to
cause another Rule (which itself is silent) to effect Rule
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, should wins in such a system
be based on absolute value, or do players have to win completely in
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, should wins in such a system
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score
whose absolute value is at least 100 (specifying all such
players), all those players satisfy the Winning Condition of
High Score.
Another
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So perhaps the criterion should be something like, for a
score of a + bi, a 0 b = 2500/a.
Which can of course be written more prettily as simply a * b = 2500.
-root
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 16:40, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I meant that each contest would be associated with one (or more) of
the defined axes, not that each contest would have its own unique
axis.
Not to be a spoilsport on the complex numbers thing, but if you are
going to do the
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 16:25, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 15:28 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I create the following crops in ais523's possession: 9, 1, 0, 4, 7, 7, 0, X
The online AAA report doesn't seem to have recorded the crops on the
list at the top,
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 16:40, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I meant that each contest would be associated with one (or more) of
the defined axes, not that each contest would have its own unique
axis.
Not to be a
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I missed that bit when I skimmed the proto. I agree that would
inflate too rapidly -- with the current score index, a player with no
points would win in four weeks without even doing anything.
Er, non-real score. So the above
root wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In recognition of the recent and mostly-successful export of the
Monster to B Nomic, and in order to further enable trade relations
with B, the Recognition of B Nomic is hereby flipped to Friendly.
Not until they
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
