Re: DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 21:18 -0800, John Smith wrote:
In the interest of maintaining everyone's right to resolve matters of
controversy,
If and only if no player is currently Grand Vizier,
{I register myself as a player.
I flip my posture to Sitting.
I intend, with notice, to act as Justiciar to accept every CfJ that
has been submitted to the Justiciar and not yet accepted.
}
(I'm not sure whether I would be second or third on the List of
Succession, but that shouldn't matter. Also, consider my Citizenship
temporary if it exists at all.)
I was wondering if someone who had never been a player might turn up in
order to help combat the scam. For some reason, I forgot there was a
non-player watching.
And I was indeed wondering if the attempted mass deregistration violated
R101 (how can you resolve a matter of controversy in a remotely fair
manner when there's a dictatorship?).
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, omd wrote: On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: This distribution of proposal 6958 initiates the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters are the active players at the time of this distribution In case anyone wants to try to judicially punish this scam, I'll note that this description of the class of eligible voters is incorrect, as are the explanatory comments of the form (Everyone but me has N rests). (Yally had more, and Murphy had less.) What's incorrect about eligible voter description? It's the boilerplate from many previous and I believe it's technically accurate. I agree I made I made some errors in some explanatory parenthetical statements which might be subject to NoV. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, ais523 wrote: And I was indeed wondering if the attempted mass deregistration violated R101 (how can you resolve a matter of controversy in a remotely fair manner when there's a dictatorship?). Three comments: 1. R101 guarantees an expectation of resolution, but says nothing about the resolution being *fair*. Worth a CFJ (after the dust has settled) on whether any level of fairness is implied? 2. At least one absolute ruler is a *byword* for fair resolution (Solomon). The proof of the pudding... 3. Nonetheless, in the interests of fair, I'll ask my co-conspirator Murphy to assign any raised CFJs to someone who would be eligible if the scam hadn't happened while officially assigning it to me. I'll publish the proto-judgement of the assigned judge unchanged. (This is an offer and a pledge - it can't be enforced but again, the proof is in the pudding). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation
If you were inactive, how could you be an eligible voter?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 25, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, John Smith wrote:
In the interest of maintaining everyone's right to resolve matters of
controversy,
If and only if no player is currently Grand Vizier,
{I register myself as a player.
This registration's condition is only true if my scam worked.
If the scam worked, then for a few hours, Bucky was the only player without a
losing
condition (I was under the Losing Condition of inactivity up until a few
hours ago, as
is Murphy currently).
If so, Bucky has platonically won by solitude (no Win Announcement).
If so, congratulations, Bucky!
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, com...@gmail.com wrote: If you were inactive, how could you be an eligible voter? I became active last Tuesday (before the scam) but the Losing Condition of inactivity persists for a week after becoming active (R2130 last sentence) so just ended for me a few hours ago. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, com...@gmail.com wrote: If you were inactive, how could you be an eligible voter? I became active last Tuesday (before the scam) but the Losing Condition of inactivity persists for a week after becoming active (R2130 last sentence) so just ended for me a few hours ago. -G. Side note: If nothing else, Bucky's registration prevented me from following up with Coup and Solitude win announcements which I could have made this morning... grr :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: 2. At least one absolute ruler is a *byword* for fair resolution (Solomon). The proof of the pudding... Or maybe it's exceptio probat regulam. Fallacies are fun.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: 2. At least one absolute ruler is a *byword* for fair resolution (Solomon). The proof of the pudding... Or maybe it's exceptio probat regulam. Fallacies are fun. Less a fallacy and more a ἄρα γε ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν αυτῶν ἐπιγνώσεσθε αὐτούς if you ask me.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: 2. At least one absolute ruler is a *byword* for fair resolution (Solomon). The proof of the pudding... Or maybe it's exceptio probat regulam. Fallacies are fun. And in any case, exceptio probat regulam is a perfectly valid legal principle if used properly. Yeah.
