Okay, that was astonishingly convincing. I’m not going to change my personal approach to scams (at the very least ones that use my official position; I don’t think I’ve ever stated on record that I’ll never write a scam proposal, though I’ve also scrupulously avoided doing so). However, you have convinced me to vote on your proposals on their merits until the loopholes within them are actually located. I assure you that I will be looking through them at some point and trying to find those loopholes, which I believe almost certainly exist, myself.
Re the final matters: I apologize for the capitalization error and will make an effort to be more diligent in the future. It is difficult because my computers are prone to correcting what they perceive as spelling errors on their own; I cannot remember if that is what happened here or not. Your letter seems eminently degree worthy. -Aris On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 5:42 PM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Aris wrote: > > I warrant and affirm that I am not aware of any exploitable bug or > > loophole in any of the proposals in the current distribution and that > > I do not intend to use any of them as a part of a scam. I further > > warrant and affirm that I am not making this statement in an attempt > > to deflect attention from my other conduct or for any other reason > > than to assure Agorans of the propriety of my actions and persuade > > them to vote in favor of my proposals, given how many proposals have > > been submitted in the current distribution. > > > > Twg, can we have the same warranty (in public, to be clear) from you? > > I phrased it so that it works the same way even with your whole zombie > > thing; so you don't need to change any words at all. :) If you don't, > > I intend to vote against all of your proposals on a "better safe than > > sorry" basis. Apologies for the distrust if you don't in fact have > > anything malicious planned. > > I think your goal is laudable; and since all the proposals I've > submitted would, in fact, all improve the game (in my opinion) if > adopted, I do want on some level to give you the assurance you desire. > But I feel quite strongly on principle that warranties against scams and > loopholes should not be given on a blanket basis. I will set out why I > believe this, in the hope of persuading you to agree. > > Although I understand and respect your personal dislike of scams and > loopholes, I don't think it's possible to deny that they are an > important and enjoyable part of the game for many people. As a general > rule, Agoran society does not shun or ostracise perpetrators of scams, > provided that they act responsibly and non-destructively; in fact, it > honours them, with the patent title Scamster, which has been awarded > several times in the past and indeed is currently singled out > specifically as an "award" in Rule 2581. > > Recent scam attempts, successful or otherwise, have also all been > treated more with interest than with antipathy, especially if they are > novel or witty. Today (19th January), for example, Falsifian presented > an attempt to declare apathy - a traditional target of scams. Nobody > expressed eir disapproval, and indeed when e discovered that e had made > a trivial mistake in eir attempt, and withdrew eir CFJ into the matter, > another player resubmitted the CFJ, correcting the mistake and calling > it "interesting". That player, as you may remember, was you. > > Another recent example I would like to discuss is the case of Proposal > 8285, authored by Alexis, which contained a potential escalator scam > (that might or might not have been intentional) pointed out by Jason > Cobb. As I mentioned during its voting period, I strongly suspected that > it contained a scam, but nevertheless initially voted FOR it because I > couldn't find the scam upon examination. I believed that Alexis's skill > at hiding eir scam, if it existed, was a sufficient achievement that e > deserved its inclusion in the ruleset; and, based on eir behaviour > during eir past successful scams, which turn up impressively frequently > when browsing the mailing list archives, I trusted (and still trust) > em not to unnecessarily wreak havoc on Agora if and when e is successful > at perpetrating one. > > I don't think that my thought process here will be unusual or > unrelatable to many Agorans (although I would be fascinated to find > differently). Agora is built around textual literalism. Why should we > stigmatise cleverly worded texts if they are used responsibly? > > "Responsibility" is perhaps a poorly descriptive term in the context of > the perpetration of a scam, so let me explain what I mean. There are > some parts of the game that I feel should not be considered socially > acceptable targets of scams, for what I hope are obvious reasons. These > include the historical records of ribbons, wins and patent titles, as > well as the general health of Agora. This last is something rather > harder to define, but I think you and most other players will understand > broadly what I mean by it; I would consider something like the Annabel > Crisis or last year's dependent action panic to be "unhealthy", although > of course the latter was not an intentional scam from anybody. > > If you wish, I will warrant that, to the best of my knowledge, none of > the proposals harm any of those things. I would not intentionally seek > to harm them anyway, regardless of any pledge, warranty or other > obligation, or absence thereof. > > What I will not do, barring sufficiently persuasive arguments to the > contrary, is make a blanket statement that I am not planning or engaging > in any scams or exploits. I don't want to end up in a situation where I > am (or _anybody_ is) totally unable to take part in this part of the > game, just because it is considered suspicious to not currently be under > a pledge/warranty forbidding it, and I'm concerned that complying now > with your request would lead Agora towards a social climate of that > type. > > I acknowledge that my refusal may well cause you and others to be > suspicious of my proposals in this distribution, and possibly even to > vote against them when you would not otherwise have done so. > Nonetheless, I feel that the benefits they would bring if adopted are > less important than the principle I have outlined above. > > I'm not trying to proselytise here - as I noted above, your stance of > opposition to deviousness is well-recorded and well-regarded, at least > by me - but I hope that you will consider my words equitably and rethink > your stated intention to vote against my proposals. > > Unless, of course, you do somehow detect a loophole in one of them. > > Thank you. > > > I submit the above essay as a thesis titled "Letter to an Anti-Scamster: > On the Importance of Loopholes in Agoran Culture", with intent to > qualify for a degree. > > -twg > > > P.S. Lowercase "t" in "twg" please, even at the start of a sentence. > Think of it like xkcd or reddit, and if you really can't stand > that, please at least capitalise the whole thing. Sorry, I'm not > trying to be standoffish, it just bothers me in a way I can't quite > put my finger on. > >
