On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 16:17 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 23:34 -0500, comex wrote:
> >> In protest of this, I submit the following token Proposal (AI=1.7),
> >> titled "Moment of Silence":
> >> {
> >> Award each of {j, Murphy, ais523, 0x44, Billy Pilgrim} one Rest.
> >> }
> > The scam in B is roughly equivalent to an Agoran scam which somehow set
> > everyone else's voting limit to 0 for a proposal which was somehow
> > undemocratisable. That would normally be considered to be a legitimate
> > sort of scam; for some reason, though, ehird in particular was strongly
> > against it.
>
> More directly, it was (the scamsters finally perceived enough ambiguity
> and/or ill will to give up) roughly equivalent to forcing a proposal to
> be processed through a forum whose location was not generally known (but
> would be accessible to players if only they knew the location), and/or
> that inconsistently bounced messages, and still arguing that said forum
> was "reasonably accessible". I contented myself with arguing against
> this position, but a number of others either left (ehird and Wooble, at
> least) or threatened to do so.
That's not what we were arguing. The whole reasonably accessible thing
turned out to be irrelevant, as it merely determined which forum was the
relevant one. The argument was that the second forum's reasonable
accessibility was only relevant earlier (and it was accessible then);
the fact that it ceased to be accessible some time later is as far as we
could tell irrelevant. (And even if it was relevant, the rules didn't
prescribe any behaviour that could correct the resulting gamestate; the
scamsters could merely make the forum accessible each time they wanted
to post there, and then inaccessible immediately afterwards.)
Translated into Agora, the scam was roughly "You can only vote if you X.
And only the scamsters can/know how to do X."
--
ais523
