On Wed, 2017-07-05 at 10:30 +0100, V.J Rada wrote:
> I CFJ on "In the message to agora discussion stating "haha suck it",
> V.J. Rada broke a Pledge."
> Also I bar CB.
> 
> Argument
> 
> 1. Pledge and promise are synonyms in ordinary meaning.
>  Does that mean a promise counts as per the rules?
> 2. Can a post to A-D have the effect of breaking a pledge,
> even if it doesn't have other game effects?
> 3. Pledges to refrain from an action have to be for a limited
> time. Does that include the practically unlimited period of the sun's
> existence?

Gratuitous arguments:

"Pledge" and "Promise" have both had formal definitions in Agora in the
past (which made it clear that they were two different things), but
both of these definitions have since been repealed. Have these
influenced game custom? Or does the fact that the definitions were
repealed mean that any precedents from the time no longer apply?

Under the old definition of "pledge", players have been punished in the
past for actions unconnected with any Agoran fora. For example, a
player pledged to ascend a game of NetHack on a public NetHack server
(unrelated to the Agoran mailing lists) and failed to do so, leading to
a CFJ ruling that a rule was violated.

The first paragraph of rule 478 contains "it is hereby resolved that no
Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora". This has in
the past been taken to mean that rules penalising people for
communicating via the Fora (as opposed to communicating something in
particular via the Fora) have no effect. Does that apply in this case?
Note that IIRC there's more than one discussion forum (##nomic on
irc.freenode.net is the other one, but it's an IRC channel not a
mailing list). If it does apply, did the /making/ of the pledge violate
rule 478?

> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:27 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > haha suck it
> > 
> > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:26 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > I promise not to post in agora discussion within the period of
> > > the sun's
> > > existence
> > > 
> > 
> > 

Reply via email to