Subject: Re: [MacroNomic] New Proposals

From: "Brian Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Jul 98 00:44:28 -0400

>	I'd recommend that Lambda use an ERROR when he has a chance.  It's
>not particularly urgent though (and the ERROR should end after the
proposal
>finishes).

Er, If I read the problem right, it's not something that can be corrected
with an ERROR. ERRORs can only move things around, not insert words.

>	Lambda, I know you're busy at the moment, but have you considered
>automated voting?  Scott Goehering (I know I spelled that wrong...)
>probably still has the scripts he used for NomicLite, you might be able to
>get those from him and use them as a base for something MN specific.  I
>don't know if you know CGI, but it's pretty easy, and there are plenty of
>people here who can program.

Yes, I have considered automated voting, and proposal submitting, and began
learning CGI scripting to do it, but ran into a brick wall because my ISP
doesn't support CGI access with my account. Now, I could get it, but it
would be $50 per month, and I can't pay that. I am considering getting an
account on Illuminati Online, which gives me a web page w/CGI access for
$10 per month, and getting rid of the web site service from my ISP, but I
dunno. If anyone else can host the web page with CGI scripts, please tell
me. By the way, I will get the web site updated soon.

--- Brian Campbell (AKA lambda)
Visit my webpage: http://world.std.com/~campbell/Brian/
Visit the Latin Club webpage: http://world.std.com/~lambda/
Visit the MacroNomic webpage: http://world.std.com/~lambda/macronomic/

----------
Nihil sub sole novum.

---

From: "Brian Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Jul 98 00:47:56 -0400

>118: FOR
>(there were two 118's posted by Lambda)
>118b: AGAINST : I'm only against this because I'm not quite sure what the
>                Reactive stage of the proposals do.  Also, the word 'one'
>                was left out of the sentance describing what the player
>                needed to manage to submit a proposal.  With that word
>                missing, I don't think it would have the correct effect,
>                and thus I would urge Towsner to retract this proposal.
>
>119: AGAINST: I think the phrasing 'involved in any way' is vague.  This
>              is my only real objection however.

Oops, sorry, I compiled this message after not having slept for 36 hours. I
meant it to be 118, 119, and 120, so I'll transfer your votes to those. I'm
quite sorry I've been out of it for so long, and then screwed up when I
managed to do something. I should have gone on vacation for the past week
(I mean in a game sense).

----------
Nihil sub sole novum.

---

From: "Brian Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Jul 98 00:55:53 -0400

>I think you meant 119 here since 117 was yours.

Actually 120, since I screwed up the numbering in that email.

----------
Nihil sub sole novum.