Re: [s-d] Re: [auto] Peter votes

[Rainbow Wolfe <rainbowdreamwolf@xxxxxxxxx>]

Oo. Must start looking at the adds. :)

I've also found BNomic makes more sense in gmail as well. Although there is 
something to be said for downloading it and having it nicely filed for you.

- RW

On 4/28/05, Alex Truelsen <dichotomousmind@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 4/28/05, Peter Cooper Jr. <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > On Apr 27, 2005, at 9.18 PM, automailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >> Peter's votes:
> > >> Proposal 10/1: PUNCHAMIME : Against
> > >> I like the idea of playing with the words in the game itself, but
> > >> I'm not sure what happens if an acronym has two words in it (since 0
> > >> and 1 are both the nearest integer to 0.5, and differing conventions
> > >> for "nearest integer" exist). Also, I'm not sure about how to count
> > >> words that overlap within the acronym. And its second paragraph may
> > >> apply recursively to itself indefinitely or something.
> > >
> > > I can't recall ever seeing "round down" as the default for
> > > rounding. Everything I've ever seen that said "rounded to the nearest
> > > X" rounds .5 up; there are game precedents for this as well.
> >
> > Statisticians and accountants sometimes use round-to-even-number or
> > alternate-rounding-.5-up-and-down to prevent rounding errors from
> > accumulating. Round up is the convention generally done in most math,
> > yes, but other possibilities exist.
> 
> Yes, but we're not accountants and I don't think anyone would complain
> about being overpaid because of accumulated rounding errors. It seems 
> silly
> to think that when we have a generally accepted way of doing something and 
> a
> less common way of doing something, we wouldn't automatically go with the
> generally accepted way.
> 
> > Overlapping words don't count as a single bonus, because the acronym
> > > must reduce either to "an English Word" or "a string of English
> > > Words". But if you can break the same letters into English Words four
> > > different ways, you would be allowed to claim each of them
> > > individually.
> >
> > I suppose. I guess it wasn't completely clear that the English Words
> > that you claimed have to be the entire sequence of English words in
> > the title. But it's probably fine.
> 
> It states in the proposal that you have to specify "the acronym." The. 
> Only
> one, so there can't be two seperate acronyms in the same object's name. If
> it can be rearranged four ways with the same letters, then we'll all
> disagree on the pronounciaiton, but it's only one acronym, only one string
> of letters, so you only get paid once.
> 
> > As for recursion, the event only happens once, after which control
> > > proceeds to the next statement. The fact that it leaves the code
> > > behind it changed is immaterial.
> >
> > When a Proposal Passes, the gamestate changes listed within it are
> > implemented by whoever is responsible for them. The list of changes
> > are not necessarily an ordered list, but I doubt the world would come
> > to an end if we treated them that way.
> >
> > <snip>
> > --
> > Peter C.
> > "Did the table do something wrong?"
> > -- Troi, "Birthright, Part 1", Star Trek, The Next Generation
> 
> Gmail uses Google ads, which search the text of your message and put up
> links that are relevant... supposedly. All of the ads for this message 
> were
> about Star Trek because of this signature, which I think means that Google
> doesn't know what to do with our little game...
> [[BvS]]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss