yay, merit for me! ty. (I wonder if its possible to connect this to the other discovery that unregulated actions actually can't touch the gamestate lol.)
Anyway, the hashed argument was just "lol I like boobs". Intentionally made to be inane so that it could be easily detected if it was in the Judgement or not, and if I got carded for it (it's intentionally taunting one too), that would confirm that I made an effective Agora change of a sort (assuming that CFJ Arguments are gamestate or tracked or something, but apparently it's just unregulated) with asymmetric information. Then from there, start to vie for that I only need to send the information to whoever is affected and the officer in question (for example, if I give bob 2 shinies, I'd only need to give hash translation to bob an the shiny-officer and then enjoy secrecy until the officer posts their report, which could be valuable in certain cases). But if the argument thing for CFJs are unregulated, then not much I can really do from there lol. Oh well. On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > I'm piggybacking on Kerim's arguments/reasoning because I'd like to know > if encryption > > (and eventually public asymmetric information in general, really) can be > applied to > > Gratuitous Arguments (only the Judge needs them, yes? Just like the > translation of the > > hash, which is also "evidence" for the case), and I feel their lawyering > for this case > > would in most cases be better than mine, so I'm copying it. I present > the following as > > gratuitous arguments to that CFJ. > > 1) 585b7880ef0394acb586274ba623ecd0232fbdc2 > > 1.1) The above is a 16-character string, in a SHA-1 hash > > 1.2) At the option of the judge, I will send them em a document > (hereafter "Cuddle's > > Original") which is the decoded version of the argument stated in 1), > which plainly and > > clearly specifies a counterargument. (I'll leave it up to the judge > whether to publish it). > > You have a misconception of gratuitous arguments. You're free to have any > kind of > private conversation with the judge that you like. Convince em in a > private email. > Bribe em if you want! Do it in secret or in discussion. Whatever. > > The judge might refer your arguments in eir opinion, it's up to em. In > past cases, > the judge has sometimes said "I agree with [random person's] arguments" > but since > those arguments might have appeared in discussion, there's no record of > them. > Annoying for historians and future judges! So, as a courtesy, the > caselog-keeper > has a tradition of including well-labeled public arguments in the case log. > This informal arrangement helps capture substantive arguments or important > context > for the record, regardless of who publishes them. > > But there is no requirement for the caselog-keeper to do so. For once, > you've > hit on something that we can truly say is "unregulated". > > In this case, since there is no publication of any arguments (only a > hash), I won't > put anything in the case log. Whatever you send to the judge can be used > by em > or not. > > -G. > > > >
