A first-class person CAN register by sending a public message.
No more CFJs by non-players?
From that wording, it would still be possible. They CAN register, but they do
not necessarily do so.
To eliminate non-player CFJs, we could make it something like:
Any active player CAN
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Charles Walker wrote:
Amend Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora) by replacing
A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that
indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Eric Stucky wrote:
A first-class person CAN register by sending a public message.
No more CFJs by non-players?
From that wording, it would still be possible. They CAN register, but they do
not necessarily do so.
Obviously the wording is unclear if at least a
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Arkady English
arkadyenglish+ag...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Agorans:
I'd like to say Hi! and announce my intent to lurk/spy on the game for a
bit, until I get a feel for what it's like here, at which point I will
consider joining as a player.
While I do: can
Gondolier, please send your mail in plaintext. If you do not know how, tell us
what client you're using and I'm sure someone can help you.
And it probably doesn't require a CFJ, but… if you look at historical attempts
to register, they tend to be intentionally obfuscated and then CFJed. So,
The question is, if Murphy doesn't vote, whether the PRESENT stops us
from getting to AGAINST (strict perl-or logic interpretation), or whether
the AGAINST somehow overrides the PRESENT (common usage/more common sense
interpretation and probably the intent).
-G.
That's a rather
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011, Eric Stucky wrote:
And it probably doesn't require a CFJ, but… if you look at historical
attempts to register, they tend to be intentionally obfuscated and then CFJed.
For certain painful values of recent history.
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011, Eric Stucky wrote:
The question is, if Murphy doesn't vote, whether the PRESENT stops us
from getting to AGAINST (strict perl-or logic interpretation), or whether
the AGAINST somehow overrides the PRESENT (common usage/more common sense
interpretation and probably
On 24 June 2011 20:59, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought
'perl-or' was Do X or die so that 'or' == 'otherwise'.
The semantics of (a or b) and (a || b) are identical in Perl. (I think.)
Turiski,
Your email seems to be the one with funky wrapping; Gondilier's second
message looks fine to me.
I'm not entirely sure how my wrapping works. I fiddled with some settings; is
it better now?
(Specifying a Boolean logical OR in the original message would have
guaranteed failure,
Further, I don't believe or is ruleset-defined, so it should have the
common language meaning, which is exclusive, but I think there is history to
suggest that ENDORSE or AGAINST means what Tanner intended. (I could be
completely wrong about this)
Post-research remarks: This is
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought
'perl-or' was Do X or die so that 'or' == 'otherwise'.
If I'm not mistaken, 'or' in Perl evaluates its left argument and
returns that, unless it is
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Anyway, I thought 'perl-or' wasn't the Boolean logical 'or'. I thought
'perl-or' was Do X or die so that 'or' == 'otherwise'.
If I'm not
13 matches
Mail list logo
