Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora
G. wrote: On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: Internet messaging standards (RFC 2822) allow up to 998 characters in a subject line. Gmail and other web clients usually truncate around 255. Considering that, is allowing report or announcement text in the subject line a precedent we're okay with? Is there other precedent to guide us on that subject? (pun DEFINITELY intended) Subject lines are "weak" in terms of effect and need message-body provided context to function. Some principles (not looking up the precedents right now, but I can if need be): If the message body disagrees with the subject line, the message body always wins. Subject lines can be "quoted for context" in message body. For example, you can say in the message body "I CFJ on the statement in the Subject" and have it work. But you can't have a blank message body with "I CFJ on...X" in the Subject and have it work. I'd be interested in seeing the CFJ/whatever behind that last one, because I don't remember it. What I do sorta remember is, if (a) the body by itself is ambiguous/confusing but (b) its intent becomes clear if you also look at the subject, then the subject is allowed to provide that clarification.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor
Cuddle Beam wrote: I also believe that its entirely possible for the rules to be faulty and be acted upon via those flaws, as per ais523's withdrawal scam, where the intent was clear, but the result was a mini dictatorship. I doubt becoming a dictator would be "Treating Agora Right Good Forever", but it was allowed to happen, without these 'Judge Interventions'. I don't believe 'Judge Intervention' should apply to supersede the lack of other arguments to prevent my scam (or any other "scam", really). This is conflating two types of faulty language. Roughly: 1) A rule is intended or expected by most players to say X, but due to faulty language, it's ambiguous whether it actually says X or Y. In this case, Rule 217's "Where the text is ... unclear" favors interpreting it as X. 2) A rule is intended or expected by most players to say X, but due to faulty language (possibly intentional on someone's part), it /clearly/ (once the fault is pointed out) actually says Y. In this case, that bit of Rule 217 doesn't apply; the rule does what it actually says it does, unless some other rule (e.g. Rule 1698's protection against Agora becoming ossified) also applies and contradicts it and takes precedence. ais523's recent withdrawal scam falls into this category. Here's a similar case from October 2015: Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by replacing (b) If the decision has an adoption index, then if the strength of FOR is greater than the strength of AGAINST, and the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST is greater than or equal to the decision's adoption index (or the strength of AGAINST is zero), then the outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED. with (b) If the decision has an adoption index, then if the strength of FOR is greater than the strength of AGAINST, and the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST is greater than the decision's adoption index (or the strength of AGAINST is zero), then the outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise if the strength of FOR is equal to or greater than the decisions adoption index and the ration of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST is equal to the decision's adoption index, then the vote collector shall select either ADOPTED or REJECTED as the outcome; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED. [Give the Assessor the power to break ties, including to get a majority on a vote or when the voting ratio exactly matches the AI]. What this /actually/ did was enable a scam. Translating the above into pseudocode to make it clearer: if F > A and (F/A > AI or A = 0) then ADOPTED else if F >= AI and F/A >= AI then vote collector's choice ^^^ not "F >= A" as expected by non-scammers else REJECTED and it was followed up by an AI = 0.2 proposal of basically "omd and eir cronies get some rewards", which (with only three non-cronies voting on it) they were able to arrange F=1 A=5 and trigger the broken tie-breaking clause.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
I just started playing again, so I can't really judge CuddleBeam's attitude or whatever. But as someone who's a fan of scams and has perpetrated many in the past: Scams are a balance. On one hand, by pulling a scam you're inherently taking a toll on other players. A practical toll, because you're probably disrupting the gamestate (often blocking legitimate play); creating diverging game histories due to multiple possible interpretations; obligating many players to investigate whatever corner of the ruleset you're talking about, in order to discuss the merits of the scam and potentially plan countermeasures; and in particular obligating at least one judge to write up a formal evaluation. And an emotional toll, because you're making 'enemies' (or at least opponents) of other players in what's usually a pretty cooperative game; because you're usually trying to 'take over' the game in some way (or in mousetrap-type scams, even worse, 'taking over' other *players*); and because, well, scams have an inherent aspect of "look how clever I am, I noticed this and you didn't". ...On the other hand. Investigating the ruleset, writing judgements, and taking optimal game actions are core parts of the game! Ideally, they shouldn't be seen as a burden but as gameplay: gameplay the scamster deserves credit for creating, just like we give credit to authors of proposals for new gameplay mechanisms. Navel-gazing, overly literal interpretations of rules, logic bombs: all these are part of Agora's ethos to some extent. There's no law, for example, that we have to care about the true Platonic gamestate, no law that if we discover something's been done wrong (and not mitigated through rule-defined mechanisms such as ratification), we have to go back and recalculate everything. We could instead just collectively agree to ignore it; things would be a lot simpler that way, and all that would be harmed is some abstract idea of correctness with no inherent importance. But we don't do that.. Platonism vs. pragmatism has been debated since the beginning of this game [1], but overall we've basically stuck to platonism - perhaps because even though it's by far the more troublesome option, it's usually *fun* to deal with the consequences. Similarly, there's no law that in nomics the text of the rules has to take precedent over intent. In real legal systems it's all about intent, and while there are certainly tricky legislative maneuvers, debates over intent, and the like, there could never be the kind of literal-wording scams, blatantly contrary to intent, that have often been judged effective in Agora. Legal vs. logical is another of Agora's great debates, and here we've swayed more towards 'legal' than contemporary nomics, but there's still a whole lot of 'logical' - the more troublesome option - again, largely because it's fun to deal with the consequences. And when it comes to the emotional toll, well, if you really did find a flaw, and did the work to exploit it correctly, then you *are* clever, and perhaps you deserve to take a victory lap. ...In practice? There's certainly a tradition that scams are a legitimate part of the game. But there's an equally persistent tradition of players getting upset at scamsters and often leaving in a huff. But it helps if you're right. If you're wrong, at least if you're obviously wrong (perhaps because you didn't do the research), then you haven't held up your side of the bargain. You haven't demonstrated cleverness to back up the bombast; you haven't created interesting legal debates to make up for the (potential) gamestate chaos and the judging work. Also, real scams are inherently rate limited by the limited prevalence of flaws in the rules, which helps take off the edge. And then the rules get fixed, reducing the availability of scams in the future (balanced by the natural desire for churn and new rules, which can create new flaws). Scams that don't work, on the other hand, well, there's no shortage of rules that could be scammable under /some/ bizarre interpretation (but not a reasonable interpretation), and they won't get fixed because there's nothing wrong with them. So. CuddleBeam: I'm not saying all of your scams are obviously wrong - I haven't even seen all of them. [2] But at least one or two are, and together with the frequency, I can sympathize with some of the annoyance. Nevertheless, please don't get discouraged from scamming altogether. At least, I'd be disappointed if you did. [1] https://github.com/AgoraNomic/wiki/blob/master/wiki/Library/Vanyel.md [2] actually I just noticed the badge one and I think it's pretty clever. although it would need some modification to have a chance of working, and probably it wouldn't work at all, but still...
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora
Curiously, rule 2201 §2.1 doesn't use either "publish" or "announce(ment)", so I'm not sure you actually need to do that in the PF. Greetings, Ørjan. On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, V.J Rada wrote: Tttpf On Monday, July 10, 2017, V.J Rada wrote: I reject your CoE. The name of the newspaper is clearly News of Agora. Failing that, the name of the newspaper is the first heading, CuddleBeam condemned. This is totally discretionary. Dont question my name, dude. On Monday, July 10, 2017, grok (caleb vines) > wrote: On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Alex Smith wrote: On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 12:43 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote: For a moment of levity in these trying times: CoE: The Reportor did not give a suitable name for the newspaper eir report. Gratuitous: the email's subject line contains a pretty reasonable name for a newspaper. Can that be considered part of the report? -- ais523 Internet messaging standards (RFC 2822) allow up to 998 characters in a subject line. Gmail and other web clients usually truncate around 255. Considering that, is allowing report or announcement text in the subject line a precedent we're okay with? Is there other precedent to guide us on that subject? (pun DEFINITELY intended) -grok
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > Internet messaging standards (RFC 2822) allow up to 998 characters in > a subject line. Gmail and other web clients usually truncate around > 255. Considering that, is allowing report or announcement text in the > subject line a precedent we're okay with? Is there other precedent to > guide us on that subject? (pun DEFINITELY intended) Subject lines are "weak" in terms of effect and need message-body provided context to function. Some principles (not looking up the precedents right now, but I can if need be): If the message body disagrees with the subject line, the message body always wins. Subject lines can be "quoted for context" in message body. For example, you can say in the message body "I CFJ on the statement in the Subject" and have it work. But you can't have a blank message body with "I CFJ on...X" in the Subject and have it work. I don't think truncation issues have come up. None of this answers whether you can use a Subject line to Title something, because maybe the message body provides enough context to infer that the subject line contains the title. That seems like a grey area to me.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora
In your defense, I figured you were. In PSS's defense, I wasn't 100% sure. On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:34 PM, V.J Rada wrote: > I was joking don't worry pss > > > On Monday, July 10, 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: >> >> Calm down! I don’t think he was the questioning the name, but rather if it >> had a name. >> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com >> >> >> >> > On Jul 10, 2017, at 4:16 PM, V.J Rada wrote: >> > >> > I reject your CoE. The name of the newspaper is clearly News of Agora. >> > Failing that, the name of the newspaper is the first heading, CuddleBeam >> > condemned. This is totally discretionary. Dont question my name, dude. >> > >> > On Monday, July 10, 2017, grok (caleb vines) >> > wrote: >> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Alex Smith >> > wrote: >> > > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 12:43 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote: >> > >> For a moment of levity in these trying times: >> > >> >> > >> CoE: The Reportor did not give a suitable name for the newspaper eir >> > >> report. >> > > >> > > Gratuitous: the email's subject line contains a pretty reasonable name >> > > for a newspaper. Can that be considered part of the report? >> > > >> > > -- >> > > ais523 >> > >> > Internet messaging standards (RFC 2822) allow up to 998 characters in >> > a subject line. Gmail and other web clients usually truncate around >> > 255. Considering that, is allowing report or announcement text in the >> > subject line a precedent we're okay with? Is there other precedent to >> > guide us on that subject? (pun DEFINITELY intended) >> > >> > >> > -grok >> >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora
I was joking don't worry pss On Monday, July 10, 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Calm down! I don’t think he was the questioning the name, but rather if it > had a name. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > On Jul 10, 2017, at 4:16 PM, V.J Rada > > wrote: > > > > I reject your CoE. The name of the newspaper is clearly News of Agora. > Failing that, the name of the newspaper is the first heading, CuddleBeam > condemned. This is totally discretionary. Dont question my name, dude. > > > > On Monday, July 10, 2017, grok (caleb vines) > wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Alex Smith > wrote: > > > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 12:43 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > > >> For a moment of levity in these trying times: > > >> > > >> CoE: The Reportor did not give a suitable name for the newspaper eir > > >> report. > > > > > > Gratuitous: the email's subject line contains a pretty reasonable name > > > for a newspaper. Can that be considered part of the report? > > > > > > -- > > > ais523 > > > > Internet messaging standards (RFC 2822) allow up to 998 characters in > > a subject line. Gmail and other web clients usually truncate around > > 255. Considering that, is allowing report or announcement text in the > > subject line a precedent we're okay with? Is there other precedent to > > guide us on that subject? (pun DEFINITELY intended) > > > > > > -grok > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora
Calm down! I don’t think he was the questioning the name, but rather if it had a name. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Jul 10, 2017, at 4:16 PM, V.J Rada wrote: > > I reject your CoE. The name of the newspaper is clearly News of Agora. > Failing that, the name of the newspaper is the first heading, CuddleBeam > condemned. This is totally discretionary. Dont question my name, dude. > > On Monday, July 10, 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 12:43 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > >> For a moment of levity in these trying times: > >> > >> CoE: The Reportor did not give a suitable name for the newspaper eir > >> report. > > > > Gratuitous: the email's subject line contains a pretty reasonable name > > for a newspaper. Can that be considered part of the report? > > > > -- > > ais523 > > Internet messaging standards (RFC 2822) allow up to 998 characters in > a subject line. Gmail and other web clients usually truncate around > 255. Considering that, is allowing report or announcement text in the > subject line a precedent we're okay with? Is there other precedent to > guide us on that subject? (pun DEFINITELY intended) > > > -grok signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:29 PM, V.J Rada wrote: > > Title: Vij's hip blog, because that's where people get their news from > man. It's the internet age, man. > i am a fan of this
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora
I reject your CoE. The name of the newspaper is clearly News of Agora. Failing that, the name of the newspaper is the first heading, CuddleBeam condemned. This is totally discretionary. Dont question my name, dude. On Monday, July 10, 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Alex Smith > wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 12:43 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > >> For a moment of levity in these trying times: > >> > >> CoE: The Reportor did not give a suitable name for the newspaper eir > >> report. > > > > Gratuitous: the email's subject line contains a pretty reasonable name > > for a newspaper. Can that be considered part of the report? > > > > -- > > ais523 > > Internet messaging standards (RFC 2822) allow up to 998 characters in > a subject line. Gmail and other web clients usually truncate around > 255. Considering that, is allowing report or announcement text in the > subject line a precedent we're okay with? Is there other precedent to > guide us on that subject? (pun DEFINITELY intended) > > > -grok >
Re: DIS: The clearest rule text I've ever written - and I think it works...
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 11:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > [Keep in mind I meant well...] > > > > Default is a Switch switch tracked by the tracker of that switch > > with possible values 'default' (default) and any rules-specified > > default for that switch. If the rules specify a default for a > > switch, that switch's default switch value is set to that rules- > > specified default. Otherwise the value of the default switch of > > that switch is 'Default'. The default value of a switch is the > > value of its default switch. > > This requires each officer who tracks a switch to report an infinite > amount of data, per the fact that switch switches apply to the switch > switches themselves, and rule 2379. > > Of course, it's possible to report an infinite amount of data in a > single message, via describing it rather than explicitly listing it, > but needing to report on the default switches at all is a fairly > obnoxious requirement. We had switch switches before (and acknowledged their infinite nature) and we're saved in reporting by the fact that other than the top set, they're all in default: That officer's (weekly, if not specified otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that switch whose value is not its default value; That said, I've since thought of better ways to do this, but I wanted to share my lovely prose :P
Re: DIS: The clearest rule text I've ever written - and I think it works...
On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 11:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > [Keep in mind I meant well...] > > Default is a Switch switch tracked by the tracker of that switch > with possible values 'default' (default) and any rules-specified > default for that switch. If the rules specify a default for a > switch, that switch's default switch value is set to that rules- > specified default. Otherwise the value of the default switch of > that switch is 'Default'. The default value of a switch is the > value of its default switch. This requires each officer who tracks a switch to report an infinite amount of data, per the fact that switch switches apply to the switch switches themselves, and rule 2379. Of course, it's possible to report an infinite amount of data in a single message, via describing it rather than explicitly listing it, but needing to report on the default switches at all is a fairly obnoxious requirement. -- ais523
DIS: The clearest rule text I've ever written - and I think it works...
[Keep in mind I meant well...] Default is a Switch switch tracked by the tracker of that switch with possible values 'default' (default) and any rules-specified default for that switch. If the rules specify a default for a switch, that switch's default switch value is set to that rules- specified default. Otherwise the value of the default switch of that switch is 'Default'. The default value of a switch is the value of its default switch.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 12:43 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote: >> For a moment of levity in these trying times: >> >> CoE: The Reportor did not give a suitable name for the newspaper eir >> report. > > Gratuitous: the email's subject line contains a pretty reasonable name > for a newspaper. Can that be considered part of the report? > > -- > ais523 Internet messaging standards (RFC 2822) allow up to 998 characters in a subject line. Gmail and other web clients usually truncate around 255. Considering that, is allowing report or announcement text in the subject line a precedent we're okay with? Is there other precedent to guide us on that subject? (pun DEFINITELY intended) -grok
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora
On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 12:43 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > For a moment of levity in these trying times: > > CoE: The Reportor did not give a suitable name for the newspaper eir > report. Gratuitous: the email's subject line contains a pretty reasonable name for a newspaper. Can that be considered part of the report? -- ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora
For a moment of levity in these trying times:
CoE: The Reportor did not give a suitable name for the newspaper eir report.
Rule 2446:
{The Reportor's weekly report includes:
1. A suitable name for a newspaper, at the Reportor's discretion.}
I interpret this to mean that the name of the newspaper is at the
Reportor's discretion, not the decision whether or not to name the
newspaper. Either way, I would certainly appreciate the flavor.
-grok
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:26 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
> I deputise for the Reportor under the fourteen days clause
> and publish the following newspaper.
>
> =Cuddlebeam Confronted=
> An uproar has occurred after CB's latest attempt to transfer
> all assets to himself! Some claim that CB is making the game
> unfun with such frivolous scams. This reporter hopes for the
> game of Agora's continued health, however that may come.
> ==FLR Published==
> The latest FLR has been published last month. However,
> the Rulekeepor is on vacation and unable to publish the
> SLR. E has gracefully allowed us to publish them by agency,
> and Agora needs a hero to publish the SLR and get Shinies!
> This reporter has considered doing so himself, and may do
> so soon.
> =Proposals Passed=
> Assets v.7, Gentle Judicial Updates, Cards are Power 1.7
> and Betterer Pledges have all passed.and are now law.
> Assets v.7 and GDU are both reenacting old standard rules
> that somehow got repealed, CaP 1.7 is a small fix to an area
> of the rules that desperately needs overhaul and Betterer
> Pledges makes the pledge system more administrable.
> =Elections Resolved, Initiated=
> The elections for three positions were conducted and the
> incumbents won two of them; the other was given to the only
> person who would agree to have it. V.J. Rada called 3 new
> elections but votes cannot be taken until Quazie initiates the
> Agoran decisions!
> =Proposals Put up for Vote==
> A proposal making pledges even better and a proposal about
> regulations have been placed up for vote. Given that it turns
> out that pledges are now not a game entity and a "promise"
> counts as a pledge, do we need a fourth pledge proposal?
> As to regulations, this reportor doubts the neccesity of yet
> another probably underused administrative apparatus.
> =Some People Register=
> V.J Rada is here, and he's a random teenager who stumbled
> here by mistake from a website he uses to pretend to be on
> reality television. If he ever seems less than smart, that's
> probably why. Also
> old standard Bayushi is back, along with
> two people who angrily deregistered like a month ago, grok
> and nichdel. And omd is back although he didn't deregister and
> he's making great contributions. And G. registered and
> deregistered in the very same message. He was angry about
> foreign language use which makes me angry sometimes too
> given we all speak English fluently and all. Anyway.
> =CFJ Roundup==
> Lots of CFJs! Lots of judiciary! Almost no actual game actions!
> Get ur priorities right nerds!* Also this reportor would like to
> remind you all PLEASE POST YOUR CFJ JUDGEMENTS IN
> BUSINESS NOT OFFICIAL OR AT LEAST LET'S MAKE THEM
> ALL IN THE SAME LIST thanks.
>
> 3528 (judge: ais523): It isn't possible to judge whether or not
> someone "enjoyed" typos until they actually post about it. Also
> in dicta: The discretion given to a Referee for carding something
> labelled a "cardable offense" is higher than breaking a "SHALL
> NOT".
>
> 3520 and 3021 (judge: quazie) Acting on behalf of someone will
> be counted as though that person performed the action in all
> circumstances. Also, giving someone power to submit a proposal
> on your behalf does not convey power to enter proposal
> competitions.
>
> 3523 (judge: Aris) A judgement bar can be made after the CFJ is
> called (but not after assigned).
>
> Some number (judge: me) Any attempt to transfer a non-integer
> quatity of Shinies is ineffective
>
> And lots of others I can't be bothered ah
> =Exclamation Points Overused=
> really ffs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
Or just like not at all ever. On Tuesday, July 11, 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I have to agree tbh, and I regret a degree what I've done, given that I'm > aware that there was a better way to do it. I should've sent that message > as a hypothetical case to a-d an claim the would-be merit through there > rather than a-b. > > But oh well, next time. > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Josh T > wrote: > >> While I haven't been paying attention to your scams of late due to real >> life drama and bad timing (family issues; I'm flying to go be with them for >> a month starting Thursday), I feel that your welcome with such tactics has >> worn thin. >> >> 天火狐 >> >> On 10 July 2017 at 12:17, Cuddle Beam > > wrote: >> >>> Yes, they are definitely contradictory at times. I've mentioned before >>> that I don't have any objective measure to decide what interpretation is >>> best, so I just use one which does the most interesting thing for me in >>> hopes that a enough audience agrees with it or a CFJ about it is judged in >>> my favor, because I don't know which among the myriad of perfectly >>> reasonable interpretations I will be judged by. >>> >>> If you, nichdel and PSS, had opposite (and contradictory) >>> interpretations on something, I would believe that both are equally valid. >>> Now, I have many interpretations just like those in mind at any given time >>> (and many contradictory), and I have no tiebreaker. And even then, my own >>> opinion about what interpretation is best matters very little when it comes >>> to resolving my own actions, because in the end, its the audience who is my >>> judge - it's all of you who have the final word. >>> >>> And you all don't unanimously agree with each other. So of course that >>> the interpretations I use won't agree with each other either. >>> >>> So I just shrug and use the ones that are more convenient for me in >>> hopes that the audience would agree to it (whether I personally agree to it >>> or not matters little, just my judgement of whether others might be >>> convinced of it or not. Which in this case was woefully inaccurate, most >>> likely due to that I just winged it). >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < >>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com >>> > >>> wrote: >>> They also seem to contradict each other at times. On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans >>> > wrote: > The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is > fallacious. Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it. > > I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing > the rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are > nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop > responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt. > > I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as > good faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they > all favor your goals. > > Cut the bullshit out. > > On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam" > wrote: > >> ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for >> trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I >> *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a >> loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded >> *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the >> office >> somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding, >> but I just want to understand that part better) >> >> All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no >> faking part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't >> believe >> it had at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I >> wouldn't have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when >> just writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it >> feels heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then >> again, if it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote >> FOR lol. But yeah, pretty evil.) >> >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) < >> grokag...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant >>> >> > >>> wrote: >>> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue >>> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably >>> have >>> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent. >>> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game >>> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red >>> Card. >>> > >>> > -Aris >>> > >>> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
I have to agree tbh, and I regret a degree what I've done, given that I'm aware that there was a better way to do it. I should've sent that message as a hypothetical case to a-d an claim the would-be merit through there rather than a-b. But oh well, next time. On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Josh T wrote: > While I haven't been paying attention to your scams of late due to real > life drama and bad timing (family issues; I'm flying to go be with them for > a month starting Thursday), I feel that your welcome with such tactics has > worn thin. > > 天火狐 > > On 10 July 2017 at 12:17, Cuddle Beam wrote: > >> Yes, they are definitely contradictory at times. I've mentioned before >> that I don't have any objective measure to decide what interpretation is >> best, so I just use one which does the most interesting thing for me in >> hopes that a enough audience agrees with it or a CFJ about it is judged in >> my favor, because I don't know which among the myriad of perfectly >> reasonable interpretations I will be judged by. >> >> If you, nichdel and PSS, had opposite (and contradictory) interpretations >> on something, I would believe that both are equally valid. Now, I have many >> interpretations just like those in mind at any given time (and many >> contradictory), and I have no tiebreaker. And even then, my own opinion >> about what interpretation is best matters very little when it comes to >> resolving my own actions, because in the end, its the audience who is my >> judge - it's all of you who have the final word. >> >> And you all don't unanimously agree with each other. So of course that >> the interpretations I use won't agree with each other either. >> >> So I just shrug and use the ones that are more convenient for me in hopes >> that the audience would agree to it (whether I personally agree to it or >> not matters little, just my judgement of whether others might be convinced >> of it or not. Which in this case was woefully inaccurate, most likely due >> to that I just winged it). >> >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> They also seem to contradict each other at times. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans wrote: >>> The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is fallacious. Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it. I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt. I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as good faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they all favor your goals. Cut the bullshit out. On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam" wrote: > ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for > trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I > *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a > loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded > *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the > office > somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding, > but I just want to understand that part better) > > All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no > faking part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe > it had at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I > wouldn't have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when > just writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it > feels heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then > again, if it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote > FOR lol. But yeah, pretty evil.) > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) < > grokag...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue >> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably >> have >> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent. >> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game >> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card. >> > >> > -Aris >> > >> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans >> wrote: >> >> I would support, with a fair implementation. >> >> >> >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good >> Forever. >> >> >> >> I previously deregistered because I thought m
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
While I haven't been paying attention to your scams of late due to real life drama and bad timing (family issues; I'm flying to go be with them for a month starting Thursday), I feel that your welcome with such tactics has worn thin. 天火狐 On 10 July 2017 at 12:17, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Yes, they are definitely contradictory at times. I've mentioned before > that I don't have any objective measure to decide what interpretation is > best, so I just use one which does the most interesting thing for me in > hopes that a enough audience agrees with it or a CFJ about it is judged in > my favor, because I don't know which among the myriad of perfectly > reasonable interpretations I will be judged by. > > If you, nichdel and PSS, had opposite (and contradictory) interpretations > on something, I would believe that both are equally valid. Now, I have many > interpretations just like those in mind at any given time (and many > contradictory), and I have no tiebreaker. And even then, my own opinion > about what interpretation is best matters very little when it comes to > resolving my own actions, because in the end, its the audience who is my > judge - it's all of you who have the final word. > > And you all don't unanimously agree with each other. So of course that the > interpretations I use won't agree with each other either. > > So I just shrug and use the ones that are more convenient for me in hopes > that the audience would agree to it (whether I personally agree to it or > not matters little, just my judgement of whether others might be convinced > of it or not. Which in this case was woefully inaccurate, most likely due > to that I just winged it). > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> They also seem to contradict each other at times. >> >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans wrote: >> >>> The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is >>> fallacious. Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it. >>> >>> I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the >>> rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are >>> nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop >>> responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt. >>> >>> I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as >>> good faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they >>> all favor your goals. >>> >>> Cut the bullshit out. >>> >>> On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam" wrote: >>> ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding, but I just want to understand that part better) All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no faking part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe it had at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I wouldn't have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when just writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it feels heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then again, if it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote FOR lol. But yeah, pretty evil.) On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) < grokag...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue > > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have > > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent. > > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game > > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > >> I would support, with a fair implementation. > >> > >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good > Forever. > >> > >> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response > to CB > >> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to > >> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB > does > >> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player. > >> > >> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a > single > >> time that CB has considered other players, or done nec
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
Yeah the deregistrations and all that CB has caused is not worth it. I did like his 2.99 super CFJS though. I wonder if we could get criminal justice done by having people pledge to arbitrate. On Tuesday, July 11, 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Yes, they are definitely contradictory at times. I've mentioned before > that I don't have any objective measure to decide what interpretation is > best, so I just use one which does the most interesting thing for me in > hopes that a enough audience agrees with it or a CFJ about it is judged in > my favor, because I don't know which among the myriad of perfectly > reasonable interpretations I will be judged by. > > If you, nichdel and PSS, had opposite (and contradictory) interpretations > on something, I would believe that both are equally valid. Now, I have many > interpretations just like those in mind at any given time (and many > contradictory), and I have no tiebreaker. And even then, my own opinion > about what interpretation is best matters very little when it comes to > resolving my own actions, because in the end, its the audience who is my > judge - it's all of you who have the final word. > > And you all don't unanimously agree with each other. So of course that the > interpretations I use won't agree with each other either. > > So I just shrug and use the ones that are more convenient for me in hopes > that the audience would agree to it (whether I personally agree to it or > not matters little, just my judgement of whether others might be convinced > of it or not. Which in this case was woefully inaccurate, most likely due > to that I just winged it). > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> They also seem to contradict each other at times. >> >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans > > wrote: >> >>> The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is >>> fallacious. Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it. >>> >>> I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the >>> rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are >>> nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop >>> responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt. >>> >>> I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as >>> good faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they >>> all favor your goals. >>> >>> Cut the bullshit out. >>> >>> On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam" >> > wrote: >>> ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding, but I just want to understand that part better) All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no faking part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe it had at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I wouldn't have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when just writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it feels heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then again, if it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote FOR lol. But yeah, pretty evil.) On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) < grokag...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant > > > wrote: > > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue > > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have > > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent. > > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game > > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans > wrote: > >> I would support, with a fair implementation. > >> > >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good > Forever. > >> > >> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response > to CB > >> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to > >> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB > does > >> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player. > >> > >> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a > single > >> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary w
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
Yes, they are definitely contradictory at times. I've mentioned before that I don't have any objective measure to decide what interpretation is best, so I just use one which does the most interesting thing for me in hopes that a enough audience agrees with it or a CFJ about it is judged in my favor, because I don't know which among the myriad of perfectly reasonable interpretations I will be judged by. If you, nichdel and PSS, had opposite (and contradictory) interpretations on something, I would believe that both are equally valid. Now, I have many interpretations just like those in mind at any given time (and many contradictory), and I have no tiebreaker. And even then, my own opinion about what interpretation is best matters very little when it comes to resolving my own actions, because in the end, its the audience who is my judge - it's all of you who have the final word. And you all don't unanimously agree with each other. So of course that the interpretations I use won't agree with each other either. So I just shrug and use the ones that are more convenient for me in hopes that the audience would agree to it (whether I personally agree to it or not matters little, just my judgement of whether others might be convinced of it or not. Which in this case was woefully inaccurate, most likely due to that I just winged it). On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > They also seem to contradict each other at times. > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans wrote: > >> The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is >> fallacious. Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it. >> >> I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the >> rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are >> nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop >> responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt. >> >> I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as >> good faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they >> all favor your goals. >> >> Cut the bullshit out. >> >> On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam" wrote: >> >>> ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for >>> trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I >>> *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a >>> loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded >>> *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office >>> somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding, >>> but I just want to understand that part better) >>> >>> All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no >>> faking part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe >>> it had at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I >>> wouldn't have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when >>> just writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it >>> feels heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then >>> again, if it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote >>> FOR lol. But yeah, pretty evil.) >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) >> > wrote: >>> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent. > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans wrote: >> I would support, with a fair implementation. >> >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever. >> >> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to CB >> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to >> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB does >> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player. >> >> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a single >> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or >> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to anyone >> but emself. With these two finger points in play now, I'd like to make a quick reminder that I recommended Cuddlebeam be carded if eir attempt to deputize as Surveyor fails[1]. [1]: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/ msg28819.html -gr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
They also seem to contradict each other at times. On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans wrote: > The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is fallacious. > Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it. > > I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the > rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are > nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop > responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt. > > I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as > good faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they > all favor your goals. > > Cut the bullshit out. > > On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam" wrote: > >> ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for >> trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I >> *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a >> loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded >> *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office >> somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding, >> but I just want to understand that part better) >> >> All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no >> faking part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe >> it had at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I >> wouldn't have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when >> just writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it >> feels heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then >> again, if it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote >> FOR lol. But yeah, pretty evil.) >> >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant >>> wrote: >>> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue >>> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have >>> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent. >>> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game >>> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card. >>> > >>> > -Aris >>> > >>> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans wrote: >>> >> I would support, with a fair implementation. >>> >> >>> >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever. >>> >> >>> >> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to >>> CB >>> >> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to >>> >> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB >>> does >>> >> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player. >>> >> >>> >> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a >>> single >>> >> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or >>> >> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to >>> anyone >>> >> but emself. >>> >>> >>> With these two finger points in play now, I'd like to make a quick >>> reminder that I recommended Cuddlebeam be carded if eir attempt to >>> deputize as Surveyor fails[1]. >>> >>> [1]: >>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28819.html >>> >>> >>> -grok >>> >> >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is fallacious. Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it. I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt. I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as good faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they all favor your goals. Cut the bullshit out. On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam" wrote: > ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for > trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I > *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a > loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded > *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office > somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding, > but I just want to understand that part better) > > All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no faking > part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe it had > at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I wouldn't > have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when just > writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it feels > heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then again, if > it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote FOR lol. > But yeah, pretty evil.) > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) > wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue >> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have >> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent. >> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game >> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card. >> > >> > -Aris >> > >> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans wrote: >> >> I would support, with a fair implementation. >> >> >> >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever. >> >> >> >> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to CB >> >> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to >> >> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB does >> >> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player. >> >> >> >> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a single >> >> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or >> >> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to >> anyone >> >> but emself. >> >> >> With these two finger points in play now, I'd like to make a quick >> reminder that I recommended Cuddlebeam be carded if eir attempt to >> deputize as Surveyor fails[1]. >> >> [1]: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/m >> sg28819.html >> >> >> -grok >> > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 10:42 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote: > ..I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for > trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I > *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a > loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded > *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office > somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding, > but I just want to understand that part better) > > All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no faking > part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe it had > at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I wouldn't > have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when just > writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it feels > heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then again, if > it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote FOR lol. > But yeah, pretty evil.) I have some potential advice here. If I'm going to try a scam and I'm not certain it works, I often try to find a coconspirator with good knowledge of the rules to talk the scam through with before attempting it. This is particularly important because if you try a scam that *almost* works, it can end up being stolen by someone else or fixed before it actually goes through, so you want to find the best possible version of the scam before attempting it. It's also useful to have a good knowledge of Agoran history so that you know what scams have already been attempted repeatedly and keep failing. (Sometimes, such scams *do* end up working eventually, but it's very rare, and you need to have a good understanding of why they failed on previous occasions to know what would be different this time.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 08:07 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > Trying to use a loophole that pretty patently does not exist or relies > on misinterpretation of common definitions of words pretty clearly > falls in foul of "No Faking" to me. > > But even if it doesn't, if the CFJ is ruled against you, then you > clearly were Faking when you submitted a Surveyor report and should be > carded for that instance. > > Regardless, I don't buy "I thought it might work" as a defense when > the action is intended to avert the rules as intended. If it was a > legitimate accident, sure. But in the case of a deliberate attempt to > use the rules in a way that is not intended that fails due to an > action that is impossible, the player should be punished for > attempting an action that is clearly impossible. We used to have rather stronger rules against lying in the public forum (they come back every now and then, I think mostly for "gotcha"-based gameplay rather than an actual attempt to ensure honesty). People tried to work around them with elaborate disclaimers, but they tended to make actions ineffective (you do something by announcement by saying that you do it, so if you say that you do something but you also say that anything in the message is potentially false, that's not really saying that you're doing it). I think my favourite was the rules against /misleading/ people in the public forum (rather than against /lying/ to them). That could be worked around via making your action so blatantly incorrect that nobody could be mislead into thinking that it worked. (It also gave me one of my favourite disclaimers, which didn't tend to block the rest of the action: "Note: although I believe that this works, this sort of scam has historically tended to fail, so please take care before concluding that this action has had an effect".) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for trying > the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I *fail* to > deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a loophole to > try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded *regardless* of if I > fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office somehow spare me of > getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding, but I just want to > understand that part better) Trying to use a loophole that pretty patently does not exist or relies on misinterpretation of common definitions of words pretty clearly falls in foul of "No Faking" to me. But even if it doesn't, if the CFJ is ruled against you, then you clearly were Faking when you submitted a Surveyor report and should be carded for that instance. Regardless, I don't buy "I thought it might work" as a defense when the action is intended to avert the rules as intended. If it was a legitimate accident, sure. But in the case of a deliberate attempt to use the rules in a way that is not intended that fails due to an action that is impossible, the player should be punished for attempting an action that is clearly impossible. -grok
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: grok, Attorney at Law
Yeah, that was a drafting error. I intend, with 24 hours' notice, to create the following agency: Title: grok, Personal Attorney (gPA) Agents: All players except grok Director: grok Powers: Any agent may pay grok 5 shinies to activate gPA. If a player does, e may make the following pldege on grok's behalf, replacing the string '' with a string of numbers that matches the numeric code of an open CFJ: "I pledge to either submit one or more gratuitous arguments for CFJ or pay 5 shinies to the player who posted this message on my behalf." On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > "gAL" doesn't exist I believe (Nowhere in the Superintendent report: > https://agoranomic.org/Superintendent/reports/week/next.txt , not in a-b > either aside from here). Perhaps a leftover from editting it? > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:43 AM, grok (caleb vines) > wrote: >> >> I'm not going to let all this nonsense get in the way of interesting >> gameplay. So here's my proto-Public Defender office, which I guess is >> technically a Private Defender's office in this form: >> >> I intend, with 24 hours' notice, to create the following agency: >> >> Title: grok, Personal Attorney (gPA) >> Agents: All players except grok >> Director: grok >> >> Powers: Any agent may pay grok 5 shinies to activate gAL. If a player >> does, e may make the following pldege on grok's behalf, replacing the >> string '' with a string of numbers that matches the numeric code >> of an open CFJ: "I pledge to either submit one or more gratuitous >> arguments for CFJ or pay 5 shinies to the player who posted this >> message on my behalf." >> >> >> -grok > >
DIS: Re: BUS: grok, Attorney at Law
"gAL" doesn't exist I believe (Nowhere in the Superintendent report: https://agoranomic.org/Superintendent/reports/week/next.txt , not in a-b either aside from here). Perhaps a leftover from editting it? On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:43 AM, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > I'm not going to let all this nonsense get in the way of interesting > gameplay. So here's my proto-Public Defender office, which I guess is > technically a Private Defender's office in this form: > > I intend, with 24 hours' notice, to create the following agency: > > Title: grok, Personal Attorney (gPA) > Agents: All players except grok > Director: grok > > Powers: Any agent may pay grok 5 shinies to activate gAL. If a player > does, e may make the following pldege on grok's behalf, replacing the > string '' with a string of numbers that matches the numeric code > of an open CFJ: "I pledge to either submit one or more gratuitous > arguments for CFJ or pay 5 shinies to the player who posted this > message on my behalf." > > > -grok >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer finds The One
I agree but while it would be true that it would "exist in some form"; it
wouldn't exist as an "asset", and the rule refers to the existence of
assets themselves, not abstract items in general.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:46 AM, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, CuddleBeam
> wrote:
> > Arguments:
> > - CFJ 3532 ("Assets with multiple backing documents can't exist")
> > - R2166 states "An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule",
> however,
> > this is in itself a definition of what an asset is - it is an entity
> defined
> > as such by a rule. So R2166 is a backing document.
>
> Arguments: You're missing the second part - "existing solely because
> its backing document defines its existence". That's the reason assets
> can't have multiple backing documents: an asset can't exist 'solely
> because of' each of two different things. But in general,
> rule-defined assets would probably continue to exist (at least in some
> form) even if Rule 2166 were repealed and left "asset" undefined;
> thus, Rule 2166 doesn't satisfy the condition.
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.
...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding, but I just want to understand that part better) All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no faking part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe it had at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I wouldn't have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when just writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it feels heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then again, if it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote FOR lol. But yeah, pretty evil.) On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue > > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have > > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent. > > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game > > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > >> I would support, with a fair implementation. > >> > >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever. > >> > >> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to CB > >> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to > >> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB does > >> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player. > >> > >> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a single > >> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or > >> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to anyone > >> but emself. > > > With these two finger points in play now, I'd like to make a quick > reminder that I recommended Cuddlebeam be carded if eir attempt to > deputize as Surveyor fails[1]. > > [1]: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/ > msg28819.html > > > -grok >
