Re: BUS: Small round trip

[Cuddle Beam]

I deregister.

> El 21 jul 2017, a las 7:53, Cuddle Beam  escribió:
> 
> I'm a bit embarrassed about everything going on, so I'll deregister.
> 
> In my defense for the latest thing, I did take a situation which is entirely 
> innocuous to the rest of the game (trust tokens, who uses them? And even 
> then, you could still issue them yourself whenever. No urgency or significant 
> connection to everything else, unless you make it so.) and I did put a 
> warning that it was exotic territory: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28889.html, and 
> I repeated it as I discussed it.
> 
> So, I was aware that it deviant. That's why I made it separate and I put a 
> notice about it in the first place. But then it started to escalate and I 
> don't mind when its limited to the lounge of talking about what I've brought 
> up, but then it started to spill everywhere else somehow, and that wasn't my 
> intent.
> 
> I tried for it to be separate from everyone else's concerns and whoever was 
> interested in it, could participate, with me deliberately choosing a 
> situation that I believed that pretty much anyone not into it could just 
> ignore. That's why I chose that compartmentalized situation it and added 
> frequent notices that yes, I'm going pretty off-shore with what I'm using as 
> premises. Or maybe trying to do stuff like that doesn't work at all at the 
> Agoran context. At least, for me personally, it does work. I ignore pretty 
> much everything except replies on my own things on a-b, for example. And I 
> haven't read any of the discussion about the economy or all of those 
> doohickeys, because whatever result about that will be cool with me. But 
> maybe its not the same for everyone else. 
> 
> If I'm guilty of using deviant interpretation, sure. That was what I was 
> using. I already know that it has an extremely low chance of being broadly 
> taken as correct, because it uses a set of "axioms" (which are arbitrary), 
> which don't have much in common with the majority. But while it has that 
> extremely low chance - if by some feat of skill, discovery and luck, I 
> actually *do* make it work, then whoa. That makes it worthwhile for me. 
> Proving the impossible.
> 
> But oh well. I think its better for the both of us if I dereg for now. I do 
> enjoy discussing things with several people here, perhaps once I learn to how 
> to better separate the shell from the oyster we can dine on good discussion 
> together here again.
> 
> (and I'll go and suck on my shells somewhere else lol).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Small round trip

[V.J Rada]

CFJ: (at the time of calling) Cuddlebeam is a player.

Are "I'll deregister" and "I think its better for the both of us if I dereg
for now."
unambiguous intent to deregister?

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:57 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I have no clue what the appropriate response is, so I'm just going to
> > restrict this to a technical point (note that I take no game actions
> > in this message): you have to actually say "I deregister".
>
> Or to clarify: you don't have to use that exact wording, but you do
> have to clearly state that you deregister.
>
> "I'll deregister" = "I will deregister" is ambiguous as to the timing,
> so it doesn't fulfil the conditions to be a valid action by
> announcement. (In general, you can't perform actions at future times
> anyway, even if the time is specified unambiguously.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

BUS: Small round trip

[Cuddle Beam]

I'm a bit embarrassed about everything going on, so I'll deregister.

In my defense for the latest thing, I did take a situation which is
entirely innocuous to the rest of the game (trust tokens, who uses them?
And even then, you could still issue them yourself whenever. No urgency or
significant connection to everything else, unless you make it so.) and I
did put a warning that it was exotic territory:
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28889.html,
and I repeated it as I discussed it.

So, I was aware that it deviant. That's why I made it separate and I put a
notice about it in the first place. But then it started to escalate and I
don't mind when its limited to the lounge of talking about what I've
brought up, but then it started to spill everywhere else somehow, and that
wasn't my intent.

I tried for it to be separate from everyone else's concerns and whoever was
interested in it, could participate, with me deliberately choosing a
situation that I believed that pretty much anyone not into it could just
ignore. That's why I chose that compartmentalized situation it and added
frequent notices that yes, I'm going pretty off-shore with what I'm using
as premises. Or maybe trying to do stuff like that doesn't work at all at
the Agoran context. At least, for me personally, it does work. I ignore
pretty much everything except replies on my own things on a-b, for example.
And I haven't read any of the discussion about the economy or all of those
doohickeys, because whatever result about that will be cool with me. But
maybe its not the same for everyone else.

If I'm guilty of using deviant interpretation, sure. That was what I was
using. I already know that it has an extremely low chance of being broadly
taken as correct, because it uses a set of "axioms" (which are arbitrary),
which don't have much in common with the majority. But while it has that
extremely low chance - if by some feat of skill, discovery and luck, I
actually *do* make it work, then whoa. That makes it worthwhile for me.
Proving the impossible.

But oh well. I think its better for the both of us if I dereg for now. I do
enjoy discussing things with several people here, perhaps once I learn to
how to better separate the shell from the oyster we can dine on good
discussion together here again.

(and I'll go and suck on my shells somewhere else lol).