That's what I wondered: even though one annotation in the FLR says: "Players must obey the rules, even if no rule says so", which would, IMO, imply that ILLEGAL actions are IMPOSSIBLE, yet Agorans keep the distinction, as was explained to me by somebody, because an ILLEGAL action and its consequences do not have to be rolled back if it's inconsequential or even beneficial to preserving the spirit of Agora
On 11/22/17, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Corona wrote: >> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable >> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself >> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some >> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than >> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'. > > There's a certain ethical stance that's been expressed around here; wins > can be deceitful as long as they're LEGAL, but ILLEGAL wins are cheaper > somehow and some people just won't break the rules in order to win, or at > least not if the rules-breakage is critical to the win. Otherwise, why > make > anything ILLEGAL at all? > > Again with the boardgame example, if you got to the end of a boardgame > and the winner confessed "actually I had an advantage because I secretly > kept an extra card in my hand the whole game", would you still call em > the winner or would you say e cheated and didn't win? > > (Also: this discussion will get more intense if we commodify punishments > via Blot currencies). > > > >
