Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you be a little more specific about what the problem is here? What > about the PRS would you change, or what do you find to be scammable or > unbalanced? The PRS is regulated by the same "without three > objections" that contests require. I can't speak for the others, but a contest is currently limited to 5*players points per week. The PRS allows it to use "unused" points of other contests without limitation. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Jun 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Elliott Hird wrote: why? >>> >>> I have a problem with the laundering concept of the PRS. It should not >>> be granted the ability to award points. Points should only be awarded >>> for generally-approved subgames, but the PRS would open the way for >>> anything to grant points. >> >> I agree. I object to all pending attempts to make PRS a contest. > > Come to think of it, I also object to all such pending attempts (same > reasons). -Goethe > To Zefram, Goethe, Eris, and Wooble: Can you be a little more specific about what the problem is here? What about the PRS would you change, or what do you find to be scammable or unbalanced? The PRS is regulated by the same "without three objections" that contests require. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hello, world
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:45 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/6/28 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> My VP is now 50 or above. >>> >>> I give Pavrita 20 Vote Points. >> >> You know, ais523 stole VP from me and gave them to you >> because he thought you desperately wanted to be out of the Vote Market. > > Did he? > > ...So many messages... > > I don't know how many VP I have, so I suppose I will wait for the next > Vote Market report. I would suggest taking this opportunity to terminate the equation of CFJ 1915. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hello, world
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/6/28 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> My VP is now 50 or above. >> >> I give Pavrita 20 Vote Points. > > You know, ais523 stole VP from me and gave them to you > because he thought you desperately wanted to be out of the Vote Market. Did he? ...So many messages... I don't know how many VP I have, so I suppose I will wait for the next Vote Market report.
DIS: Re: BUS: Hello, world
2008/6/28 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > My VP is now 50 or above. > > I give Pavrita 20 Vote Points. You know, ais523 stole VP from me and gave them to you because he thought you desperately wanted to be out of the Vote Market.
DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
I object to ehird's, ihope's, and both of Quazie's attempts to make the PRS a contest. It would allow contests to persistently exceed the rules-mandated cap on number of awardable points. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:39 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ihope wrote: >>Just to speed things along or something, I intend to make the Points >>Relay Service a contract with myself as contestmaster without three >>objections. > > I object. And here I thought you'd just reposted the same thing 4 times. Why? -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5577-5584
2008/6/28 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You can't vote on these proposals. Here's part of the distribution > message that you didn't quote: > > | The eligible voters for ordinary > |proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic > |proposals are the active first-class players, > > -zefram > Argh. I forgot I wasn't a player. ehird
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2032 assigned to woggle
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:25 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Comments please? >> >> Proto-judgment: > > It's a good proto-judgement. > > Too bad it doesn't yield my desired outcome... :( > > Have you considered Goethe's argument wrt refusing to be a member to a > contract? Not previously, but looking at it, I don't find it convincing. R101(iv) is phrased in terms of a choice, talking explicitly about "consent" versus "refusal", suggesting the important aspect of the right is the ability to choose between becoming party and not becoming party to an agreement. Most importantly, its phrasing strongly suggesting that the right should be interpreted so as to prevent people who 'explicitly' and 'willfully' consent from becoming a party. I believe this enshrines a game custom of allowing people to agree to all sorts of ridiculous and unconscionable contracts that might be otherwise barred by a reasonable reading of R101. And there's a serious difference in scope here. A "bribing" contract would only interfere with becoming party to itself, whereas the hypothetical contract, if made it into a contest, would interfere with all players initiation of CFJs. In consideration of the small effective punishment the hypothetical contract provides (it certainly isn't anything like EXILE or CHOKEY), it is that it would render it fundamentally impossible to excersize the right in any case without incurring punishment that renders it objectionable. -woggle -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Elliott Hird wrote: >>why? > > I have a problem with the laundering concept of the PRS. It should not > be granted the ability to award points. Points should only be awarded > for generally-approved subgames, but the PRS would open the way for > anything to grant points. > The PRS requires the same "without three objections" method of approving a sub-game as the rules do. I don't see how its any more unsafe than our current contest creation method. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5577-5584
Elliott Hird wrote: >>5577 O1 1comex I don't deserve Scamster! >AGAINSTx4 You can't vote on these proposals. Here's part of the distribution message that you didn't quote: | The eligible voters for ordinary |proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic |proposals are the active first-class players, -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
Elliott Hird wrote: >why? I have a problem with the laundering concept of the PRS. It should not be granted the ability to award points. Points should only be awarded for generally-approved subgames, but the PRS would open the way for anything to grant points. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1996 assigned to Ivan Hope
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:44 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>On or about Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:03:27 -0400, comex gave Ivan >>Hope 50 pens > > Hmm, I thought this had been judged a long(ish) time ago. I was going to include a long argument setting a precedent for whether it would work if you did not in fact have 50 pens, and whether and under what circumstances conditional actions work nowadays, either overturning or sustaining the precedent of CFJs 1214-15, and CFJ 1302... But I got lazy.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2032 assigned to woggle
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Comments please? > > Proto-judgment: It's a good proto-judgement. Too bad it doesn't yield my desired outcome... :( Have you considered Goethe's argument wrt refusing to be a member to a contract?
DIS: Re: BUS: PRS
2008/6/28 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I object. > > -zefram > why?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration
Elliott Hird wrote: > You're a player, which is more than I >can say. Er, you just did say it. -zefram
