They also seem to contradict each other at times. On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is fallacious. > Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it. > > I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the > rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are > nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop > responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt. > > I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as > good faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they > all favor your goals. > > Cut the bullshit out. > > On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam" <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for >> trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I >> *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a >> loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded >> *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office >> somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding, >> but I just want to understand that part better) >> >> All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no >> faking part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe >> it had at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I >> wouldn't have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when >> just writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it >> feels heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then >> again, if it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote >> FOR lol. But yeah, pretty evil.) >> >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant >>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue >>> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have >>> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent. >>> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game >>> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card. >>> > >>> > -Aris >>> > >>> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> I would support, with a fair implementation. >>> >> >>> >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever. >>> >> >>> >> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to >>> CB >>> >> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to >>> >> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB >>> does >>> >> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player. >>> >> >>> >> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a >>> single >>> >> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or >>> >> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to >>> anyone >>> >> but emself. >>> >>> >>> With these two finger points in play now, I'd like to make a quick >>> reminder that I recommended Cuddlebeam be carded if eir attempt to >>> deputize as Surveyor fails[1]. >>> >>> [1]: >>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28819.html >>> >>> >>> -grok >>> >> >>
