"Dclient/Dserver"

[Dach]

Originally posted by bo0ey
One word: Graalnet Snooper

Players can log onto this snooper with
their graal account/password and it will
log them onto a 'Lobby' where they can talk
to other players. They can click on the
Playerworld button to show a list of the playerwords.
They can enter a playerworld, but they would only
be shown as 'name' (Snooper) and have an
icon that snoopers get, say, an eyeball.
They can send PMs and chat with other snoopers.

the graal messenger that Nova is making will allow you to send pms to in-game people even though your not playing methinks

[superb]

Originally posted by Dach


the graal messenger that Nova is making will allow you to send pms to in-game people even though your not playing methinks

Might as well be Angel's project by what I've heard.

[Shiftk03-]

Originally posted by Tyhm
Implication is subject to interpretation. If the majority believes it was an intentional implication - ie most people think "I did not have sexual relations with Miss Monica Lewinsky" implies he didn't get any favors either, thus it was implied. If only you read "Hey, I was working on something like that too, cool" as "HEY YOU, THAT WAS MY IDEA!", then it's not as good as saying it - you're just wrong and need to take deeper breaths.

Which is the case remains to be seen; I can't speak for the majority.

Are you implying that I had sexual relations with that Dserver?

[Neoreno]

...Excuse my ignorance, but what the hell is a Dserver?

[Golbez]

Aye, Direct Connect... Angel I can see it being a good idea but to much "*****s" would be asking to much questions and others would have illigal things hosted. Ya and you know where that goes...

[Python523]

Originally posted by Dach


the graal messenger that Nova is making will allow you to send pms to in-game people even though your not playing methinks

I kind of doubt that =/ unless he has the protocol the gserver uses it would be really hard to make that...

[zell12]

anti-hax code build in.

[Crono]

Originally posted by Neoreno
...Excuse my ignorance, but what the hell is a Dserver?

^-- Same Question --^

[TribulationStaff]

From what I've head, its some sort of advanced RC.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally posted by Tyhm
Implication is subject to interpretation.

True, but the whole point of implication is that there is an intended meaning. People can be wrong about it, but it exists nonetheless. Even if we discard this and rely on estimation, it doesn't mean that the majority decides anything.

In this case, ProjectShifter's use of the '=/' emoticon makes it clear that he was making the observation in a disgruntled mood, and implying that there was something wrong with Angel's actions.

[Tyhm]

But this implied meaning is subject to interpretation. You can't say "When you closed that door, you implied all african-americans love kool-aid!"; while you can infer that, it's not explicitly implied. (I was implying that it's cold and I don't want moths in my house - how you got kool aid out of that is quite beyond me!) In fact that's a contradiction in terms, practically (but not quite on a technicality) an oxy***** - you can't explicitly imply, which is to say something implicitly. So it boils down to: Did most people infer the same thing? In that case, something was certainly implied, whether it was intended or not. Did only one or two people infer the same thing, or loosely related things? In that case nothing was implied so much as inferred; you got more out of it than was actually there by virtue of nobody else saw it. Majority rule is the only stable way to adjudicate implication.

You can infer something freely. You can't tell someone they implied something though unless pretty much everyone's getting that same inferrance. Even if you determine it was implied, you still don't have intention; they might not have meant to signal your opinion's unimportant by folding their arms and yawning, but they did so accidentally.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally posted by Tyhm
But this implied meaning is subject to interpretation.

Of course it is, but only because we don't have access to the mind of the person who implied it. There is a correct meaning, and it's not defined by us.

In fact that's a contradiction in terms, practically (but not quite on a technicality) an oxy***** - you can't explicitly imply, which is to say something implicitly.

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm not saying that an implication can only be interpreted a single way or that any given action has a meaning baked into it. I'm saying that if somebody makes an intentional implication then there exists a correct way of interpreting that, even if the original implication was sloppy and tenuous.

So it boils down to: Did most people infer the same thing? In that case, something was certainly implied, whether it was intended or not.

Well, now we're talking about different things. Since the situation is this case revolves around an intentional implication, I'm limiting my side of the debate to that.

If I mention that I'm getting hungry then I am implying that we find a donut shop. That's absolute fact; in line with the dictionary definition, I 'expressed or indicated indirectly'. It's something that I did, with a clear and immutable meaning in my mind. If you did a little poll then maybe 100% of three hundred thousand people would decide that I was actually implying that I am about to die of starvation, and want to get to a lawyer so I can compose my will. That doesn't mean I was implying any such thing, it just means that the voters were wrong.

So, words and actions have ambiguous meanings, but people do not. There's no way for a single person to definitively identify a sentence's implied meanings but he can guess and strike upon a person's intentions in using that sentence. In the case of people, it's not a 'majority rules' situation. The people who best understand the language and the speaker have the best chance of identifying the correct meaning, but even the flip of a coin can lead to success.

[SaijinGohan]

Man you guys take forever to post. DServer would be cool from what it sounds. The main thing that I really want is a decent upload limit. I mean I can't even upload my tileset. -.-

[Dach]

Ah here it is,

originally posted by NovaNet
Note: TGN will have a special graal account which it will connect to all playerworlds and using special parameters you can send messages to GIM Users and GIM Users can message Graal users and if AIM,MSN, ICQ capabilities are added you will be able to communicate globally.

well I guess that means you'd pm graal players... *scratches head* I know it was suggested way back when while the idea was still infant

[superb]

Originally posted by Dach
Ah here it is,


well I guess that means you'd pm graal players... *scratches head* I know it was suggested way back when while the idea was still infant

Yeah, but I doubt that will happen unless Angel does it for Nova.