On 10/31/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > Yes, this set of deputisations definitely wouldn't work.
>
> Then, if Zefram wants to block the CFJs from being assigned, all he has to
> do is neglect to change sitting players to standing. The wors
comex wrote:
On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Taral wrote:
Well, I guess this works as well as the original attempt. However,
it's likely to hit you with 10,000 violations of Rule 1871.
I'm not sure about that. R1871 only says that the *CotC* SHALL NOT do
this. However, I think it's more like
On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Taral wrote:
> Well, I guess this works as well as the original attempt. However,
> it's likely to hit you with 10,000 violations of Rule 1871.
I'm not sure about that. R1871 only says that the *CotC* SHALL NOT do
this. However, I think it's more likely that it won
On 10/31/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I repeat the following sequence of actions 10,000 times:
> - I intend to deputise for the office of CotC for the purposes of changing
> all sitting players to standing.
> - I intend to deputise for the office of CotC for the purposes of assigning
> co
On 10/31/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I repeat the following sequence of actions 10,000 times:
> - I intend to deputise for the office of CotC for the purposes of changing
> all sitting players to standing.
> - I intend to deputise for the office of CotC for the purposes of assigning
> co
Zefram wrote:
> Player shall instead receive the Patent Title "Champion*X
Ah, so these are distinct patent titles and must be reported as
such, not just the title "champion" with a lost *'d explanatory
footnote and score. Thanks.
-Goethe
On 10/31/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/31/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As, I think, is analogy to OOP to begin with.
>
> The term was used without definition. I drew parallels to existing
> usage of "subclass". :P
Technically speaking, you actually drew parallels to
On 10/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Murphy wrote:
> > 02/24/06 root, Goethe, Eris [hands of cards]
> > 03/18/07 Murphy [hand of cards]
> > 05/22/07 HP2 [proposal]
> > 08/21/07 Levi [points]
> > 10/28/07 AFO [points]
>
> A pair of paradoxes is permissible to purport during t
On 10/31/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As, I think, is analogy to OOP to begin with.
The term was used without definition. I drew parallels to existing
usage of "subclass". :P
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unk
Addendum: here's the actual text implementing handicap factors, from
rule 724/0:
The Winner is the first Voter to achieve sufficiently many
Points. The minimum number of Points required for Player X to
win is 10*N*(1+G/6), where N is the number of Players currently
registe
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Side note: Anyone have insights into the weird stars and fractions
>reported for these ancient champions:
Yes. In the early days, when wins were primarily by points, people
who had previously won received a handicap to make it more difficult to
win again. Someone who had won
Murphy wrote:
> 02/24/06 root, Goethe, Eris [hands of cards]
> 03/18/07 Murphy [hand of cards]
> 05/22/07 HP2 [proposal]
> 08/21/07 Levi [points]
> 10/28/07 AFO [points]
A pair of paradoxes is permissible to purport during this period.
Or is that your "hand of cards" win that you cite well
On 10/31/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/31/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/30/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Additionally, in programming, objects belong to
> > > only one subclass. I find, therefore, that an individual case can only
> > > belong to one
On 10/31/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/30/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Additionally, in programming, objects belong to
> > only one subclass. I find, therefore, that an individual case can only
> > belong to one subclass.
>
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/82412.html
I
On 10/31/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about multiple inheritance?
That would be multiple superclasses.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
On 10/30/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The crux of this is the definition of "subclass". Unfortunately, the
> only version of "subclass" I found in the dictionary is the biological
> one. It is worth noting that for the biological "subclass", a species
> belongs to only one. Additionally,
On 10/31/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Award comex the patent title "Sorceror's Apprentice".
Violet VC gained, and immediately lost.
On 10/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
> >03/18/07 Murphy [hand of cards]
>
> This date has to be wrong. Cards were repealed last year.
Indeed, it was 3/18/06.
-root
Ed Murphy wrote:
>03/18/07 Murphy [hand of cards]
This date has to be wrong. Cards were repealed last year.
-zefram
19 matches
Mail list logo
