Phil Ulrich on Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:09:27 -0600 (CST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] Phil submits p1967 |
Or, it could say "exactly one," but in that case we possibly have to kick theta out for not being a player if it passes. :P Stops the rocks, though.
Or the unique part could be removed altogether, leaving it to just say "It has a working e-mail address not already in use by an existing player." This means the rocks couldn't play, because they share the same email address as you. Again, though, that wouldn't stop anyone like me, but that's a technicality.
I'd also like to find some way to refine the bit about the Turing Test, but I can't really think of a way to do it.
--Phil ======================================="Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarreled with him?" - Blaise Pascal
On Dec 16, 2004, at 3:46 PM, Jeremy Cook wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 08:39:00PM +0000, automailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:Phil has submitted a new proposal, p1967. --------------------------------- Proposal 1967/0: A finger in the dam A Standard Proposal by Phil Last modified on nweek 75, nday 1In r14, change the text "It has a working e-mail address." to "It has a unique working e-mail address not already in use by an existing player."---------------------------------What if someone has two working email addresses not already in use by an existing player? Then e wouldn't have a unique one. Zarpint _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
_______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss