On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> just don't clear your cookie file. The cookie will persist until 2038
>> or something.
>
> Unless, like me, your cookies are automatically forced to be ses
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> just don't clear your cookie file. The cookie will persist until 2038
> or something.
Unless, like me, your cookies are automatically forced to be session cookies.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:33 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Phooey. I so want to define "rounds of applause" as a currency, right
>> alongside http://tipjar.com/2008i/tipjarium.html";> tipjarium
>> which is in
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sgeo's "FINE in the judge's choice of currency" proposal would allow
> such flexibility.
Not really. For one thing, a Vote Market-specific mechanism would be
much preferable since the VPs remain zero-sum. But generally,
cri
comex wrote:
> Equity is becoming more and more powerful because some seemingly
> crucial parts of the game are located in contracts. And indeed, it
> has been proposed that we give equity jurisdiction over the Rules.
> But equity is not in the Spirit of Agora, because it basically forbids
> scam
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:33 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phooey. I so want to define "rounds of applause" as a currency, right
> alongside http://tipjar.com/2008i/tipjarium.html";> tipjarium
> which is in pre-alpha state but if you think ReCaptcha is fun,
> it's a game today.
Su
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:20 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I object to this one as well. I really don't like the idea of this
>> going into the Vote Market contract, but why don't you create this as
>> a sub-contract
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:19 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> could the current Accountor please contact me concerning
>> specifications for automating their task?
>
> I think the Accountor is perfectly capabl
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:19 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> could the current Accountor please contact me concerning
> specifications for automating their task?
I think the Accountor is perfectly capable of creating the automation
necessary to publish no report and track nothing.
could the current Accountor please contact me concerning
specifications for automating their task?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How about some recordkeepors?
>
> It would
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I object to this one as well. I really don't like the idea of this
> going into the Vote Market contract, but why don't you create this as
> a sub-contract?
A sub-contract won't be able to modify VP. While props could just
e
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:24 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> While I like the idea, I object because I already have enough
>> currencies and transactions to track. Change the recordkeeper and make
>> any VP transfers
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I like the idea, I object because I already have enough
> currencies and transactions to track. Change the recordkeeper and make
> any VP transfers pragmatic and I'll support this.
Well, we can't have the VP transfers
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about some recordkeepors?
It wouldn't be so horrible to actually make the Accountor do something
for a change.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:53 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I OBJECT to my previous attempt to add a section to the Vote Market
> contract. (The proposed typo fix stands.)
>
> Without 3 objections I intend to amend the Vote Market contract by
> adding the following sections:
> {{
> 13. Pok
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Players playing attention can destroy eir pokes by announcement,
> right? Note that a conspiracy of five players can forcibly dislodge
> one VP per week (four of them can make a contract allowing the fifth
> to act on their be
comex wrote:
> Without three objections, I intend to amend the Vote Market contract
> by adding the following section:
> {
> 13. Pokes are a fixed currency. Once per week, a first-class party
> CAN poke a person by announcement, causing em to gain a poke. If a
> person ever has at least five pok
17 matches
Mail list logo
