DIS: Re: BUS: Small round trip

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 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).

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".

-Aris

Re: DIS: Fwd: [Agora] Request for advice regarding CFJ 3532

[Aris Merchant]

P.S. I know I'm late on all of my obligations, and I'll catch up on
them this weekend.

-Aris

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> I'm forwarding this message, which I originally sent to omd, to a-d in
> the hopes that it might find an answer here. I feel kind of awkward
> doing this, but it needs an answer so I can resolve the case, and I
> don't have time at the moment to draft a better email.
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> Sorry for not getting to this sooner, I've been busy. I'd like some
> advice about how to proceed with this CFJ. Your motion to reconsider
> has been filed, and it's very reasonable. The problem is that I'm
> having trouble coming up with logic that supports my judgment.
> Instinctively, this situation feels, well, fuzzy. It seems like this
> is the kind of issue that's ripe for interpretation, but I'm having a
> hard time putting my finger on exactly why.
>
> The best I can figure out is that it probably has something to do with
> the difference between a term "being defined" and it "having meaning".
> To put that another way, we would interpret shinies as existing even
> if they were defined by no rule, and by no dictionary. The only way I
> can think of to use that to reach a ruling would be to say that the
> kind of implied meaning that the term would have is too weak to
> trigger the clause, and that explanation is so flimsy it's laughable.
> Still, I have a strong gut feeling that *something* here is ambiguous.
> You seemed to agree with me, as you said that "I suspect it’s entirely
> possible to come up with a definition that
> comports with the judge’s result". I would really appreciate it if you
> could help me with some suggestions. Even a plausible explanation
> would be enough, as an outcome of TRUE is so strongly supported by the
> other factors.
>
> Thank you,
> -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[Aris Merchant]

Actually, this proposal is seriously flawed. A person can always claim
to have believed that something they tried (however unreasonably), and
honest players like G. get caught in the crossfire when they do things
they're unsure of. A better way to do this is a reasonable person
standard (complain as much as you want about it being vague, because
it's probably what we're going to end up using for prosecutions
anyway). Basally, the idea is that if a reasonable person who
preformed a reasonable amount of due diligence (say looking at the
relevant rules and their annotations in the FLR for a few minutes)
could not have reasonably believed that it would work, then it's
illegal. (You'd probably add it to the existing rule, not do it as a
replacement.) We could put whatever safeguards on it people wanted.
For instance, I'd add a restriction that it only applied when doing
something contrary to common sense. I believe this would increase the
ease of prosecutions of the type of player we're trying to stop, while
still protecting honest players. Thoughts?

-Aris

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:27 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> I think Less Strict Faking by nichdel would probably end the game as we know
> it but Less Strict Faking by nichdel is the only thing that can save it imo.
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:13 AM, grok (caleb vines) 
> wrote:
>>
>> I got yours, I just didn't wanna say anything because I thought it might
>> be funny
>>
>>
>> -grok
>>
>>
>> On Jul 20, 2017 8:09 PM, "V.J Rada"  wrote:
>>
>> I already did this. Did my message not send?
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.
>>> 
>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Jul 13, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I submit the following proposal:
>>> >
>>> > Title: Less Strict Faking
>>> > AI: 1
>>> > Author: nichdel
>>> > Co-authors:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
>>> >
>>> > A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not
>>> > believe
>>> > to be possible so as to deceive others.
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>

DIS: Fwd: [Agora] Request for advice regarding CFJ 3532

[Aris Merchant]

I'm forwarding this message, which I originally sent to omd, to a-d in
the hopes that it might find an answer here. I feel kind of awkward
doing this, but it needs an answer so I can resolve the case, and I
don't have time at the moment to draft a better email.


-- Forwarded message --
Sorry for not getting to this sooner, I've been busy. I'd like some
advice about how to proceed with this CFJ. Your motion to reconsider
has been filed, and it's very reasonable. The problem is that I'm
having trouble coming up with logic that supports my judgment.
Instinctively, this situation feels, well, fuzzy. It seems like this
is the kind of issue that's ripe for interpretation, but I'm having a
hard time putting my finger on exactly why.

The best I can figure out is that it probably has something to do with
the difference between a term "being defined" and it "having meaning".
To put that another way, we would interpret shinies as existing even
if they were defined by no rule, and by no dictionary. The only way I
can think of to use that to reach a ruling would be to say that the
kind of implied meaning that the term would have is too weak to
trigger the clause, and that explanation is so flimsy it's laughable.
Still, I have a strong gut feeling that *something* here is ambiguous.
You seemed to agree with me, as you said that "I suspect it’s entirely
possible to come up with a definition that
comports with the judge’s result". I would really appreciate it if you
could help me with some suggestions. Even a plausible explanation
would be enough, as an outcome of TRUE is so strongly supported by the
other factors.

Thank you,
-Aris

Re: DIS: Referee Archives

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 00:44 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> Would it be useful to archive Referee decisions and arguments, as we
>> do with Calls for Judgement?
>
> I'm not sure about "useful", given that by definition they have no
> precedential value, but it would at least be interesting (and part of
> the "story of Agora", which has been discussed as an important export
> from the Agoran economy on several occasions recentlyish in a-d).
>
> --
> ais523

It would, and I disagree with ais523 about their presidential value.
To elaborate, I agree that they have no rule recognized value at
present, but that is not exactly the same as them lacking value. As I
understand it, the non-Agoran origin of the doctrine of precedent is
from the common law, where courts saw the importance of achieving
consistency. Consistency is a core principle of justice and society,
ensuring that cases are decided on the merits of the situation, rather
than the feelings of the judge about the person(s) involved. I would
guess it arose as custom, and later became binding, as customs so
often do. Agora has not adopted this customarily, choosing instead to
specify the value of precedent in specific cases by rule. However, an
archive would serve several purposes: it would, as ais523 points out,
preserve history, but it would also allow traditions of persuasive
precedent and consistency to evolve. To be clear, I'm not suggesting
we should make this binding, and I think any archive needs to note any
CFJs appealing referee decisions, which would have more authority.
Overall, I believe the idea has merit.

[At a glance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent doesn't seem to
contradict me.]

-Aris

Re: DIS: Referee Archives

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 00:44 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > Would it be useful to archive Referee decisions and arguments, as we
> > do with Calls for Judgement?
> 
> I'm not sure about "useful", given that by definition they have no
> precedential value, but it would at least be interesting (and part of
> the "story of Agora", which has been discussed as an important export
> from the Agoran economy on several occasions recentlyish in a-d).

Actually, I was reading o's careful and thoughtful cnsiderations of each
Case, and thinking "someone should be archiving these as precedents
for punishment, these are excellent!  A record makes "game custom"
which is given equal weight to past judicial precedents by r217.

Re: DIS: Referee Archives

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 00:44 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Would it be useful to archive Referee decisions and arguments, as we
> do with Calls for Judgement?

I'm not sure about "useful", given that by definition they have no
precedential value, but it would at least be interesting (and part of
the "story of Agora", which has been discussed as an important export
from the Agoran economy on several occasions recentlyish in a-d).

-- 
ais523

DIS: Referee Archives

[Owen Jacobson]

Would it be useful to archive Referee decisions and arguments, as we do with 
Calls for Judgement?

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> o, you seem to have accepted that a pledge in Japanese, of very limited
> comprehension to me, and with limited enforceability due to translation issues
> (even with the translator) is still some kind of publicly-made pledge.  Why 
> does
> this case differ to you?

Can you point out where I did so? I’m having difficulty finding it. It does 
sound like a thing I’d do, but I had not fully understood the implications of 
CFJ 1460 until after your Cygneus Cantus, so if it was prior to that, I plead 
ignorance by default.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Jul 20, 2017 10:02 PM, "Alex Smith"  wrote:

On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:52 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus  > ibonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.
>
> As the proposal’s imminence had already been flipped to Pending by
> V.J Rada, I believe that this fails and will record that you paid
> nothing to do nothing unless someone feels strongly enough to open a
> CFJ.

Does anyone know whether there's an existing CFJ on whether you can
flip a switch to its own current value or not? It seems like the sort
of thing that's almost certain to have come up at some point.

Rule 2445 certainly allows you to pend a pending proposal, so the only
way this failed is if the whole concept of "pending a pending proposal"
is invalid due to the fact that nothing actually changes.

--
ais523


I distinctly remember that switch question being a discussion, possibly a
CFJ. I don't remember the results, just that I was on the wrong end of
them. I will do some research in the morning when I'm less useless.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jul 20, 2017, at 10:37 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:11 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> Attempting, as Cuddlebeam explicitly did, to issue Trust Tokens on
>> behalf of others, without even the faintest attempt to find
>> justification in the rules, is plainly and obviously an intentional
>> misinterpretation of the rules. E knew the action e purported to take
>> would be impossible, before e sent any messages purporting to
>> undertake that action, and sent the anyways.
> 
> Potential counterargument: it's clear from this thread's subject that
> CuddleBeam hasn't given the rules more than the most cursory reading,
> as (without a rule change) there can only be one Trust Token win ever
> (rule 2452, the same one e cited!), so hoping that other people would
> give em a win "too" would be very implausible if e had actually read
> the rules.

I think at the point where you’re citing specific rules, it’s reasonable to 
assume you’ve read those specific rules, especially as the underlying 
dishonesty hinged on yet another wilfully obtuse reading of the rule. That’s 
not something you can do by casually skimming.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jul 20, 2017, at 10:33 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 19:19 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> I agree with this carding. CuddleBeam has repeatedly shown that e
>> cares neither about the feelings of the other players, nor about the
>> interests of the game. As the player who spoke most strongly in eir
>> support when this whole mess started, I believe this obligation falls
>> on me. I intend, with 2 support, to Throw the Book at CuddleBeam.
> 
> Huh, I just read what a Red Card actually does, and it feels fairly
> minor for what's described as one of our largest punishments. Being
> unable to effectively vote for one voting cycle is a fairly short
> punishment. IIRC back when we had the Chokey, the most similar former
> punishment I'm aware of, it halved voting power for a month. Several
> other systems would have created negative assets that required
> expending positive assets to get rid of.

An unexpended Yellow Card zeroes (rather than penalizing) voting strength for 
up to 30 days. In many ways, they’re a more severe punishment, as well as being 
a more interesting one. If nichdel’s reforms don’t pass for some non-trivial 
reason, it’s something I’d be interested in fixing.

> Of course, in these days of Referee fiat, it's possibly for the best
> that we don't have any particularly punishments. Perhaps we can change
> that once criminal justice reform goes through.

Agoran consent should absolutely be an element of any serious punishment.

> (Note that this isn't to say that I believe CuddleBeam deserves a
> larger punishment in this particular case; there are way bigger
> potential breaches than this one, so the relatively small punishment
> that's being applied in this particular case seems reasonably
> proportionate and fair.)




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jul 20, 2017, at 11:02 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:52 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> ibonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.
>> 
>> As the proposal’s imminence had already been flipped to Pending by
>> V.J Rada, I believe that this fails and will record that you paid
>> nothing to do nothing unless someone feels strongly enough to open a
>> CFJ.
> 
> Does anyone know whether there's an existing CFJ on whether you can
> flip a switch to its own current value or not? It seems like the sort
> of thing that's almost certain to have come up at some point.
> 
> Rule 2445 certainly allows you to pend a pending proposal, so the only
> way this failed is if the whole concept of "pending a pending proposal"
> is invalid due to the fact that nothing actually changes.

We’ve behaved as if it’s possible to pay someone zero shinies, at least. That 
involves switch manipulation, though I don’t think we’ve ever CFJed that 
specific set of actions down to the detail needed to determine whether the 
Balance switches involved are actually flipped.

However, you’ve got a point. I should probably record this as a 5-shiny pend, 
since that’s trivially the minimum allowable amount unless someone has a 
perverse interpretation of “allowable” in mind. (fx: stares at Quazie)

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:52 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus  > ibonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.
> 
> As the proposal’s imminence had already been flipped to Pending by
> V.J Rada, I believe that this fails and will record that you paid
> nothing to do nothing unless someone feels strongly enough to open a
> CFJ.

Does anyone know whether there's an existing CFJ on whether you can
flip a switch to its own current value or not? It seems like the sort
of thing that's almost certain to have come up at some point.

Rule 2445 certainly allows you to pend a pending proposal, so the only
way this failed is if the whole concept of "pending a pending proposal"
is invalid due to the fact that nothing actually changes.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:11 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Attempting, as Cuddlebeam explicitly did, to issue Trust Tokens on
> behalf of others, without even the faintest attempt to find
> justification in the rules, is plainly and obviously an intentional
> misinterpretation of the rules. E knew the action e purported to take
> would be impossible, before e sent any messages purporting to
> undertake that action, and sent the anyways.

Potential counterargument: it's clear from this thread's subject that
CuddleBeam hasn't given the rules more than the most cursory reading,
as (without a rule change) there can only be one Trust Token win ever
(rule 2452, the same one e cited!), so hoping that other people would
give em a win "too" would be very implausible if e had actually read
the rules.

Perhaps we need to make explicit in the rules the long-standing
principle that if you're participating legitimately, people will help
you out and explain things you missed (thus not requiring you to know
the whole ruleset), but if you're trying to scam a rule, you're
presumed to have read it in detail?

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.

As the proposal’s imminence had already been flipped to Pending by V.J Rada, I 
believe that this fails and will record that you paid nothing to do nothing 
unless someone feels strongly enough to open a CFJ.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Jul 20, 2017 9:19 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
wrote:

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> I find that a Red Card is appropriate, and hereby issue one to Cuddlebeam
by summary judgement.

I agree with this carding. CuddleBeam has repeatedly shown that e
cares neither about the feelings of the other players, nor about the
interests of the game. As the player who spoke most strongly in eir
support when this whole mess started, I believe this obligation falls
on me. I intend, with 2 support, to Throw the Book at CuddleBeam.

-Aris


I Support this motion.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:


On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:11 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:

Attempting, as Cuddlebeam explicitly did, to issue Trust Tokens on
behalf of others, without even the faintest attempt to find
justification in the rules, is plainly and obviously an intentional
misinterpretation of the rules. E knew the action e purported to take
would be impossible, before e sent any messages purporting to
undertake that action, and sent the anyways.


Potential counterargument: it's clear from this thread's subject that
CuddleBeam hasn't given the rules more than the most cursory reading,
as (without a rule change) there can only be one Trust Token win ever
(rule 2452, the same one e cited!), so hoping that other people would
give em a win "too" would be very implausible if e had actually read
the rules.


This just strengthens my feeling that o's reasoning that Cuddlebeam must 
have intended to deceive, failed to appropriately consider Hanlon's razor.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 19:19 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I agree with this carding. CuddleBeam has repeatedly shown that e
> cares neither about the feelings of the other players, nor about the
> interests of the game. As the player who spoke most strongly in eir
> support when this whole mess started, I believe this obligation falls
> on me. I intend, with 2 support, to Throw the Book at CuddleBeam.

Huh, I just read what a Red Card actually does, and it feels fairly
minor for what's described as one of our largest punishments. Being
unable to effectively vote for one voting cycle is a fairly short
punishment. IIRC back when we had the Chokey, the most similar former
punishment I'm aware of, it halved voting power for a month. Several
other systems would have created negative assets that required
expending positive assets to get rid of.

Of course, in these days of Referee fiat, it's possibly for the best
that we don't have any particularly punishments. Perhaps we can change
that once criminal justice reform goes through.

(Note that this isn't to say that I believe CuddleBeam deserves a
larger punishment in this particular case; there are way bigger
potential breaches than this one, so the relatively small punishment
that's being applied in this particular case seems reasonably
proportionate and fair.)

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment on CFJ 3541

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:


There is some ambiguity of what, exactly, a nickel is. Common
knowledge tells us it is a metal, but one would rarely refer to an
amount of nickel as "a nickel" without qualification--a lump of
nickel, or a vein, or an atom. Nickel is ultimately an adjective in
this sense--using it as a noun alone is not common in the language and
grammar used in Quazie's initial statement.


As thorough as your judgement is, I'm going to have to withdraw points for 
grammatical terminology:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Surveyor] [Probably] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jul 20, 2017, at 9:14 AM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:

> I Point a Finger at Cuddlebeam for a violation of R2471 for attempting
> to publish a Surveyor report when e was not the Surveyor. As
> Cuddlebeam has had over a week since the CFJ ruling that e was not the
> Surveyor and one week since I announced intent to Point a Finger about
> this report, I would recommend either a Yellow Card or Red Card.
> 
> I also would like to point out there is an existing CoE on this report
> [1], so it has not ratified. I also argue that given the amount of
> time permitted to retract the report, a retraction now would not clear
> R2471's bar for Faking.

Since I have some time to evaluate this, yet: presupposing for the moment that 
Cuddlebeam originally had a bona fide belief that e had become Surveyor when e 
published the report, and given that the report is factually correct in 
content, does failing to retract it meet r. 2471? I’m not actually sure it does:

> A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e knows is IMPOSSIBLE 
> so as to deceive others.

I can’t see a way in which inaction is an attempt to perform an action, without 
taking some of the same leaps of creative interpretation that already have us 
so frustrated.

I’m more than happy to engage on the givens, too - I’m not at all sure 
Cuddlebeam did have a bona fide belief, even in spite of my previous finding of 
Shenanigans on a closely-related matter.

Insight welcomed from all comers.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[V.J Rada]

I think Less Strict Faking by nichdel would probably end the game as we
know it but Less Strict Faking by nichdel is the only thing that can save
it imo.

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:13 AM, grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:

> I got yours, I just didn't wanna say anything because I thought it might
> be funny
>
>
> -grok
>
>
> On Jul 20, 2017 8:09 PM, "V.J Rada"  wrote:
>
> I already did this. Did my message not send?
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 13, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>> >
>> > I submit the following proposal:
>> >
>> > Title: Less Strict Faking
>> > AI: 1
>> > Author: nichdel
>> > Co-authors:
>>
>> >
>> > Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
>> >
>> > A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
>> > to be possible so as to deceive others.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[grok (caleb vines)]

I got yours, I just didn't wanna say anything because I thought it might be
funny


-grok

On Jul 20, 2017 8:09 PM, "V.J Rada"  wrote:

I already did this. Did my message not send?

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> >
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > Title: Less Strict Faking
> > AI: 1
> > Author: nichdel
> > Co-authors:
>
> >
> > Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
> >
> > A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
> > to be possible so as to deceive others.
> >
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[V.J Rada]

I already did this. Did my message not send?

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> >
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > Title: Less Strict Faking
> > AI: 1
> > Author: nichdel
> > Co-authors:
> >
> > Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
> >
> > A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
> > to be possible so as to deceive others.
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[Nic Evans]

On 07/20/17 19:07, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>> Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
>>>
>>> A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
>>> to be possible so as to deceive others.
> What's the standard for belief.  Like, if I'm 50/50 "eh, this might or might
> not work, the rules are silent"?  (That's a pretty fair description on how
> I felt about the hashed pledge, for example).

I think that's a half-empty/half-full question. Personally my standard
for 'someone believes something' is >50. But also note that it includes
'so as to deceive others'. You didn't attempt to deceive others into
thinking the hash definitely works, and you didn't lie about your
certainty on it. By the same token, saying "If this is possible, I do
this" should circumvent the 'belief standard' because you've clearly
warned that it may not be possible.

Instead, I believe this applies to circumstances where a player purports
contradictory beliefs within different sets of actions without disowning
either set. E may not be certain either set of actions is IMPOSSIBLE,
but there's no way e can believe both are simultaneously possible.

>
> Written the above way, a 50/50 would mean that I don't fully believe it's
> possible, but I also don't believe it's impossible.  Sill, that would mean
> Guilty under the proposed rule.
>
> If you wrote it "which e believes is IMPOSSIBLE" instead of "not believe to 
> be 
> possible", which is the same phrasing as the current rule, then the 50/50 case
> would be not guilty.
>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Proto: Pledges

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "V.J Rada"  wrote:
>   Also I need to spend my money before it gets blanked for value.
>   Title: Pledges, again.
> Amend rule whatever "Pledges" by adding at the end
> {{{
> No message shall be construed as a pledge unless it contains the word 
> "pledge".
> A pledge is "publically made" only if the full effect of the pledge is public 
> and 
> understandable by all players at the inception of the pledge.
> }}}
> 
> y/n? better way to say it?
> 
> Also will take ideas on how to fix loopholes to spend my other five shinies 
> for
> _VALUE_.
> 
> 
> I would recommend spelling "publicly" correctly if closing loopholes is your 
> goal. 
> Also I'm not sure the second sentence is really necessary. A pledge can only 
> compel
> the person who makes it to do it, so idk why it matters if anyone else really
> understands. Plus pledges that aren't in public forums and actions that are 
> not
> comprehensible have no effect on the gamestate.

Right now, the Referee is in a tough position if e can't understand the pledge, 
as
e is required to state truthfully whether any rules have been broken each week.
Of course, even with plainly-written pledges, that's a burden (to track all
pledges!)

My suggestion is (1) decide whether to commit to private contracts being allowed
(policy decision), then (2) whether or not that's true, come up with something
that says "a pledge can only be carded after someone Points the Finger for it."
This takes it out of the hands of the referee, and only matters if one party
to a private contract alleges that it's broken (who would have to provide the
text to prove the case).

Of course, one could also wait for that massive criminal reform proposal that's
been floated!

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
> > 
> > A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
> > to be possible so as to deceive others.

What's the standard for belief.  Like, if I'm 50/50 "eh, this might or might
not work, the rules are silent"?  (That's a pretty fair description on how
I felt about the hashed pledge, for example).

Written the above way, a 50/50 would mean that I don't fully believe it's
possible, but I also don't believe it's impossible.  Sill, that would mean
Guilty under the proposed rule.

If you wrote it "which e believes is IMPOSSIBLE" instead of "not believe to be 
possible", which is the same phrasing as the current rule, then the 50/50 case
would be not guilty.

Re: DIS: Proto: Pledges

[V.J Rada]

I don’t like this because I like the usability for private contracts and
the lack of need for the explicit “pledge” term.

The explicit "pledge" term could be "intent to make a pledge" instead. I
can think of at least one example ("outside the statute of limitations" as
it were) in which I promised to do something, with no intent, and then did
not do it. Don't want people to be caught.

The second thing is because if "publicly-made" (you're right, the spelling
of that word is one I'm not great at) pledges can pledge to do something
privately communicated under the latest CFJ I think that circumvents the
rule's intent. Obviously if that's fine as a matter of policy it's fine as
a matter of policy.

Honestly I just want to spend five shinies with great speed.

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM, grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:

>
>
> On Jul 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "V.J Rada"  wrote:
>
> Also I need to spend my money before it gets blanked for value.
>
> Title: Pledges, again.
> Amend rule whatever "Pledges" by adding at the end
> {{{
> No message shall be construed as a pledge unless it contains the word
> "pledge".
> A pledge is "publically made" only if the full effect of the pledge is
> public and
> understandable by all players at the inception of the pledge.
> }}}
>
> y/n? better way to say it?
>
> Also will take ideas on how to fix loopholes to spend my other five
> shinies for
> _VALUE_.
>
>
> I would recommend spelling "publicly" correctly if closing loopholes is
> your goal. Also I'm not sure the second sentence is really necessary. A
> pledge can only compel the person who makes it to do it, so idk why it
> matters if anyone else really understands. Plus pledges that aren't in
> public forums and actions that are not comprehensible have no effect on the
> gamestate.
>
>
> -grok
>

Re: DIS: Proto: Pledges

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Jul 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "V.J Rada"  wrote:

Also I need to spend my money before it gets blanked for value.

Title: Pledges, again.
Amend rule whatever "Pledges" by adding at the end
{{{
No message shall be construed as a pledge unless it contains the word
"pledge".
A pledge is "publically made" only if the full effect of the pledge is
public and
understandable by all players at the inception of the pledge.
}}}

y/n? better way to say it?

Also will take ideas on how to fix loopholes to spend my other five shinies
for
_VALUE_.


I would recommend spelling "publicly" correctly if closing loopholes is
your goal. Also I'm not sure the second sentence is really necessary. A
pledge can only compel the person who makes it to do it, so idk why it
matters if anyone else really understands. Plus pledges that aren't in
public forums and actions that are not comprehensible have no effect on the
gamestate.


-grok

DIS: Re: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[Nic Evans]

I'd really appreciate if someone pended this.

It'd be very useful in the following hypothetical: Imagine, if you will,
an extremely belligerent player that tries a deluge of 'scams' with
arguments full of special pleading, whatboutism, and
innocence-by-ignorance that could only be interepreted by a reasonable
person to be attempts to brute-force and exhaust players into giving em
a win. Also this belligerent person can't be bothered to read the rules
or correctly use crtl+f or follow the hypertext links in the HLR to the
relevant bits of definitions. Also e's so blind to other people that the
time, effort and feelings of other people don't register in eir
calculus. Also e thinks it's humble to repeatedly point out how humble e
is. Also e is very very proud that e can hit a couple targets with a
shotgun full of buckshot.

I know it's an unlikely type of person, but the shocking thing is none
of that behavior is apparently bad enough to be punishable. So maybe we
should start fixing that.


On 07/13/17 15:37, Nic Evans wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Less Strict Faking
> AI: 1
> Author: nichdel
> Co-authors:
>
> Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
>
> A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
> to be possible so as to deceive others.
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Proto: Pledges

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I don’t like this because I like the usability for private contracts and the 
lack of need for the explicit “pledge” term.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:16 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> Also I need to spend my money before it gets blanked for value.
> 
> Title: Pledges, again.
> Amend rule whatever "Pledges" by adding at the end
> {{{
> No message shall be construed as a pledge unless it contains the word 
> "pledge".
> A pledge is "publically made" only if the full effect of the pledge is public 
> and
> understandable by all players at the inception of the pledge.
> }}}
> 
> y/n? better way to say it?
> 
> Also will take ideas on how to fix loopholes to spend my other five shinies 
> for
> _VALUE_.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Proto: Pledges

[V.J Rada]

Also I need to spend my money before it gets blanked for value.

Title: Pledges, again.
Amend rule whatever "Pledges" by adding at the end
{{{
No message shall be construed as a pledge unless it contains the word
"pledge".
A pledge is "publically made" only if the full effect of the pledge is
public and
understandable by all players at the inception of the pledge.
}}}

y/n? better way to say it?

Also will take ideas on how to fix loopholes to spend my other five shinies
for
_VALUE_.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Jul 20, 2017 6:07 PM, "V.J Rada"  wrote:

Oh man there's always nothing better than waking up
to 20 new messages and a Cuddlebeam scam.


You're a pair of scare quotes short of my perception of the morning.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[V.J Rada]

Oh man there's always nothing better than waking up
to 20 new messages and a Cuddlebeam scam.

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > That seems pretty open and shut then. Appending an adjective is a
> mention of that
> > property which is no substitute of actually having that property. (i.e.
> calling a
> > car which isn't red a "red car" doesn't magically change its colour)
> > [consider this a gratuitous argument if it does go to a CFJ]
> > 天火狐
>
> Heh.  This comment made me remember that I tried nearly the exact same
> scam in 2001:
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1299
>
> I was pretty obnoxious back then.
>
>
> [tl;dr the rules said that when the Rules grant a player "the New Player
> Award", e
> is instead granted a "the New Player Award for each currency."   There
> were 4
> currencies, so I argued that it meant "awarded the new player award => for
> each
> currency award the new player award (4 new player awards) => for each of
> these,
> for each currency award the new player award (16 new player awards)..."
>
> In reality, of course, the "new player award for a currency" was a defined
> number
> that didn't propagate or anything...]
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Nic Evans]

You also created an organization with a Japanese charter, which is
acceptable because nothing says that chaarters have to be
understandable. But it also hasn't been allowed to do anything
meaningful. By the same token you could make a proposal in any language,
pend it andd vote on it, but whether it'd have an effect once passed is
unlikely.


On 07/20/17 15:51, Josh T wrote:
> I'd just like to mention I haven't actually succeeded in making a
> non-registration action in Japanese, and I think all my attempts at
> voting in such were thrown out, which I believe is the correct way to
> interpret the rules. (While there are technical and cryptographic
> differences, using another language is basically a form of encryption
> if not everyone can read it IMO.)
>
> 天火狐
>
> On Jul 20, 2017 15:40, "Cuddle Beam"  > wrote:
>
> >First, you've *nearly* found ONE INTERNAL SCAM
>
> humble agoran bloodhoun...-puppy at your service.
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Kerim Aydin
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I disagree with that Public is explicitly defined. "Public 
> message", yes. "Public X" in general?
> > I don't believe so. "Public challenge" isn't explicitly
> defined to need to be a public message,
> > just a challenge which is "Public" (which, via your trick,
> if it works, could be encrypted).
> > So "Public" itself isn't defined in general. 
>
> First, you've *nearly* found ONE INTERNAL SCAM I was hoping to
> try, but didn't get around to.
> So I'll give it to you.  If you look at the possible
> *responses* to a Claim of Error, "publish
> a revision" and "Initiating an inquiry case"[*] are explicitly
> public, but DENY a CLAIM is
> *not* explicitly  public.  (and since the other elements on
> the list are *explicitly* public,
> the implication is that Denial doesn't need to be public).
>
> When I published the fake Report the other week, I'd intended
> to privately Deny the claim,
> putting it secretly back on the self-ratification clock.
>
>
> Anyway,on the "public challenge" side:
>
> The full phrase is "public challenge via one of the following
> methods".  So the methods define
> what the challenge is.  So a public challenge is something
> that is "identifying a document"
> (likely needs to identify the document publicly) and uses (1)
> an inquiry case (CFJ) which has
> it's own defined process that starts "by announcement" in
> R991[*], or (2) a CoE.  BUT... I
> notice you're right, there's nothing that explicitly says a
> CoE must be public.
>
> Though if you CFJd on CoEs, my guess is the Judge would say
> something like "a challenge is one
> of the following two things, so a public challenge is one of
> those things, done publicly."
> But sure, try saying:  "I CoE on on the error specified in
> this hash..."  Or maybe wait for
> some discussion on this point first, in case I missed something.
>
> Of course, it's a trivial result, as the document-keeper could
> just say "nope, I don't find
> that hash-hidden error, because I don't know what it is, so
> I'm going to deny it".
>
>
> [*] "Inquiry Case" used to be the term for a CFJ.  This is
> archaic language.  R991 talks
> about a "Case... specifying a matter to be inquired into" as
> the definition of a CFJ, which
> is close enough.  Whether by precedent or merely custom, I
> don't remember.
>
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Josh T wrote:
> That seems pretty open and shut then. Appending an adjective is a mention of 
> that 
> property which is no substitute of actually having that property. (i.e. 
> calling a
> car which isn't red a "red car" doesn't magically change its colour)
> [consider this a gratuitous argument if it does go to a CFJ]
> 天火狐

Heh.  This comment made me remember that I tried nearly the exact same scam in 
2001:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1299

I was pretty obnoxious back then.


[tl;dr the rules said that when the Rules grant a player "the New Player 
Award", e 
is instead granted a "the New Player Award for each currency."   There were 4
currencies, so I argued that it meant "awarded the new player award => for each
currency award the new player award (4 new player awards) => for each of these,
for each currency award the new player award (16 new player awards)..."

In reality, of course, the "new player award for a currency" was a defined 
number
that didn't propagate or anything...]

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Josh T]

That seems pretty open and shut then. Appending an adjective is a mention
of that property which is no substitute of actually having that property.
(i.e. calling a car which isn't red a "red car" doesn't magically change
its colour) [consider this a gratuitous argument if it does go to a CFJ]

天火狐

On Jul 20, 2017 16:43, "grok (caleb vines)"  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Josh T 
> wrote:
> > I'm on vacation and only have mobile internet at the moment so I can't
> > check, but does the rule specify that the trust tokens needed to win are
> to
> > be issued by other players explicitly or that players can issue trust
> tokens
> > and one needs such tokens from multiple players? In the event of the
> latter
> > case it might be worth looking into because I think there is real
> ambiguity
> > with how it interacts with Agencies and this is a good excuse to look
> into
> > it.
> >
> > 天火狐
>
>
> The last paragraph of the rule, for your reading pleasure:
>
> "A person can win the game by announcement if e has been issued a
> Trust Token by each player except emself; if no person has won via
> this mechanism in the past; and if in the same message, e quotes, for
> each of those players, a public message in which that player issued em
> a Trust Token."
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Josh T]

I'd just like to mention I haven't actually succeeded in making a
non-registration action in Japanese, and I think all my attempts at voting
in such were thrown out, which I believe is the correct way to interpret
the rules. (While there are technical and cryptographic differences, using
another language is basically a form of encryption if not everyone can read
it IMO.)

天火狐

On Jul 20, 2017 15:40, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> >First, you've *nearly* found ONE INTERNAL SCAM
>
> humble agoran bloodhoun...-puppy at your service.
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > I disagree with that Public is explicitly defined. "Public message",
>> yes. "Public X" in general?
>> > I don't believe so. "Public challenge" isn't explicitly defined to need
>> to be a public message,
>> > just a challenge which is "Public" (which, via your trick, if it works,
>> could be encrypted).
>> > So "Public" itself isn't defined in general.
>>
>> First, you've *nearly* found ONE INTERNAL SCAM I was hoping to try, but
>> didn't get around to.
>> So I'll give it to you.  If you look at the possible *responses* to a
>> Claim of Error, "publish
>> a revision" and "Initiating an inquiry case"[*] are explicitly public,
>> but DENY a CLAIM is
>> *not* explicitly  public.  (and since the other elements on the list are
>> *explicitly* public,
>> the implication is that Denial doesn't need to be public).
>>
>> When I published the fake Report the other week, I'd intended to
>> privately Deny the claim,
>> putting it secretly back on the self-ratification clock.
>>
>>
>> Anyway,on the "public challenge" side:
>>
>> The full phrase is "public challenge via one of the following methods".
>> So the methods define
>> what the challenge is.  So a public challenge is something that is
>> "identifying a document"
>> (likely needs to identify the document publicly) and uses (1) an inquiry
>> case (CFJ) which has
>> it's own defined process that starts "by announcement" in R991[*], or (2)
>> a CoE.  BUT... I
>> notice you're right, there's nothing that explicitly says a CoE must be
>> public.
>>
>> Though if you CFJd on CoEs, my guess is the Judge would say something
>> like "a challenge is one
>> of the following two things, so a public challenge is one of those
>> things, done publicly."
>> But sure, try saying:  "I CoE on on the error specified in this hash..."
>> Or maybe wait for
>> some discussion on this point first, in case I missed something.
>>
>> Of course, it's a trivial result, as the document-keeper could just say
>> "nope, I don't find
>> that hash-hidden error, because I don't know what it is, so I'm going to
>> deny it".
>>
>>
>> [*] "Inquiry Case" used to be the term for a CFJ.  This is archaic
>> language.  R991 talks
>> about a "Case... specifying a matter to be inquired into" as the
>> definition of a CFJ, which
>> is close enough.  Whether by precedent or merely custom, I don't remember.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> I'm on vacation and only have mobile internet at the moment so I can't
> check, but does the rule specify that the trust tokens needed to win are to
> be issued by other players explicitly or that players can issue trust tokens
> and one needs such tokens from multiple players? In the event of the latter
> case it might be worth looking into because I think there is real ambiguity
> with how it interacts with Agencies and this is a good excuse to look into
> it.
>
> 天火狐


The last paragraph of the rule, for your reading pleasure:

"A person can win the game by announcement if e has been issued a
Trust Token by each player except emself; if no person has won via
this mechanism in the past; and if in the same message, e quotes, for
each of those players, a public message in which that player issued em
a Trust Token."

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Josh T]

I'm on vacation and only have mobile internet at the moment so I can't
check, but does the rule specify that the trust tokens needed to win are to
be issued by other players explicitly or that players can issue trust
tokens and one needs such tokens from multiple players? In the event of the
latter case it might be worth looking into because I think there is real
ambiguity with how it interacts with Agencies and this is a good excuse to
look into it.

天火狐

On Jul 20, 2017 13:38, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> Sure, all yours.
>
> And Ais523: We have serious CFJs about... a joke. Sending a nickle. I
> don't know what's the standard for CFJs right now, but people seem to be
> grasping at straws at what could be turned to become interesting. I'm
> alright with sending my CFJ at a period of relative lull like this (which I
> believe will be solved soon once the economy proposal gets settled).
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:36 PM, grok (caleb vines) 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Alex Smith 
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:24 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> >> I'd prefer to spend a CFJ slot be spent but it's not an urgent CFJ at
>> all.
>> >> I'm be up for retracting it if you pledge that you'll resubmit it when
>> the
>> >> CFJ queue is empty enough (and if the economy eventually makes CFJs
>> have a
>> >> price, I'll refund you).
>> >
>> > Why would I do something like that? I was hoping to avoid a CFJ
>> > altogether in order to avoid a judge having to waste eir time on
>> > explaining yet a gain why such a ridiculously implausible scam doesn't
>> > work. Delaying it wouldn't really help at all; there isn't a judge
>> > shortage, just a shortage of tolerance for that sort of nonsense.
>> >
>> > However, if you won't take it from me, I can find an uninvolved judge
>> > who will, I'm pretty sure, just reiterate the point that everyone else
>> > has been making. I was just hoping to avoid the effort for everyone
>> > (and the permanent embarrassment it'll create in the CFJ records).
>> >
>> > --
>> > ais523
>>
>> I'd be happy to knock it out today, assuming Cuddlebeam doesn't bar me
>> as soon as e sees this message.
>>
>>
>> -grok
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

>First, you've *nearly* found ONE INTERNAL SCAM

humble agoran bloodhoun...-puppy at your service.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I disagree with that Public is explicitly defined. "Public message",
> yes. "Public X" in general?
> > I don't believe so. "Public challenge" isn't explicitly defined to need
> to be a public message,
> > just a challenge which is "Public" (which, via your trick, if it works,
> could be encrypted).
> > So "Public" itself isn't defined in general.
>
> First, you've *nearly* found ONE INTERNAL SCAM I was hoping to try, but
> didn't get around to.
> So I'll give it to you.  If you look at the possible *responses* to a
> Claim of Error, "publish
> a revision" and "Initiating an inquiry case"[*] are explicitly public, but
> DENY a CLAIM is
> *not* explicitly  public.  (and since the other elements on the list are
> *explicitly* public,
> the implication is that Denial doesn't need to be public).
>
> When I published the fake Report the other week, I'd intended to privately
> Deny the claim,
> putting it secretly back on the self-ratification clock.
>
>
> Anyway,on the "public challenge" side:
>
> The full phrase is "public challenge via one of the following methods".
> So the methods define
> what the challenge is.  So a public challenge is something that is
> "identifying a document"
> (likely needs to identify the document publicly) and uses (1) an inquiry
> case (CFJ) which has
> it's own defined process that starts "by announcement" in R991[*], or (2)
> a CoE.  BUT... I
> notice you're right, there's nothing that explicitly says a CoE must be
> public.
>
> Though if you CFJd on CoEs, my guess is the Judge would say something like
> "a challenge is one
> of the following two things, so a public challenge is one of those things,
> done publicly."
> But sure, try saying:  "I CoE on on the error specified in this hash..."
> Or maybe wait for
> some discussion on this point first, in case I missed something.
>
> Of course, it's a trivial result, as the document-keeper could just say
> "nope, I don't find
> that hash-hidden error, because I don't know what it is, so I'm going to
> deny it".
>
>
> [*] "Inquiry Case" used to be the term for a CFJ.  This is archaic
> language.  R991 talks
> about a "Case... specifying a matter to be inquired into" as the
> definition of a CFJ, which
> is close enough.  Whether by precedent or merely custom, I don't remember.
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I disagree with that Public is explicitly defined. "Public message", yes. 
> "Public X" in general? 
> I don't believe so. "Public challenge" isn't explicitly defined to need to be 
> a public message, 
> just a challenge which is "Public" (which, via your trick, if it works, could 
> be encrypted). 
> So "Public" itself isn't defined in general. 

First, you've *nearly* found ONE INTERNAL SCAM I was hoping to try, but didn't 
get around to. 
So I'll give it to you.  If you look at the possible *responses* to a Claim of 
Error, "publish
a revision" and "Initiating an inquiry case"[*] are explicitly public, but DENY 
a CLAIM is
*not* explicitly  public.  (and since the other elements on the list are 
*explicitly* public,
the implication is that Denial doesn't need to be public).

When I published the fake Report the other week, I'd intended to privately Deny 
the claim,
putting it secretly back on the self-ratification clock.


Anyway,on the "public challenge" side:

The full phrase is "public challenge via one of the following methods".  So the 
methods define
what the challenge is.  So a public challenge is something that is "identifying 
a document"
(likely needs to identify the document publicly) and uses (1) an inquiry case 
(CFJ) which has
it's own defined process that starts "by announcement" in R991[*], or (2) a 
CoE.  BUT... I
notice you're right, there's nothing that explicitly says a CoE must be public.

Though if you CFJd on CoEs, my guess is the Judge would say something like "a 
challenge is one
of the following two things, so a public challenge is one of those things, done 
publicly."
But sure, try saying:  "I CoE on on the error specified in this hash..."  Or 
maybe wait for
some discussion on this point first, in case I missed something.

Of course, it's a trivial result, as the document-keeper could just say "nope, 
I don't find
that hash-hidden error, because I don't know what it is, so I'm going to deny 
it".


[*] "Inquiry Case" used to be the term for a CFJ.  This is archaic language.  
R991 talks 
about a "Case... specifying a matter to be inquired into" as the definition of 
a CFJ, which
is close enough.  Whether by precedent or merely custom, I don't remember.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

Woo, I was on the right track then. It's just that assembling these
findings into scams where I'm still in milk teeth with when it comes to
Agora.

Tbh I perhaps should dedicate time to studying the whole ruleset but
getting told where I'm wrong is less punishing than needing to elbow down
and memorize so much before even being able to start to lawyer in a
lawyering game. I'm alright with being wrong at times, even if frequent at
first. I'm glad to at least have a couple original and useful findings now
and then.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:17 PM, grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > ...I also missed all of those other uses of "Public", sorry. Ctrl+F isn't
> > useful to browse the ruleset when it's so large and there are so many
> > references to a single term.
>
>
> grepping through the ruleset is easy if you've read the ruleset.
>
>
> -grok
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> ...I also missed all of those other uses of "Public", sorry. Ctrl+F isn't
> useful to browse the ruleset when it's so large and there are so many
> references to a single term.


grepping through the ruleset is easy if you've read the ruleset.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

Oh, and here's a couple where unclarity works as intended!

> Magenta (M): During Agora's Birthday, each person who has publicly 
> acknowledged the
> fact qualifies for a Magenta Ribbon.

If this said "persons CAN acknowledge Agora's Birthday by announcement", this 
would
mean everyone would have to say "I acknowledge Agoran's Birthday." because you 
have
to say you perform by-announcement actions.  But a "public acknowledgement" is 
much
looser, so simply "Happy Bithday Agora" works!

On ballots, I used to think you were required to say "I vote FOR X" and anyone 
who
replied to the distribution with merely FOR/AGAINST was technically doing it 
wrong.
But then I noticed that R683 says you simply have to publish a notice that 
indicates
which decision and which option (and R683(5) is satisfied by inference/custom), 
so
the simple FOR/AGAINST with a reference to the proposal works as a public voting
notice.

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > If that shielding doesn't get in the way, I'm guessing the trick would 
> > apply to 
> > "publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an 
> > announcement
> > of intent to perform the action" too? Basically anything "public" but that 
> > isn't
> > explicitly grounded in the usual defenses. Like "Public Document" in a 
> > couple other
> > rules.
> 
> Continuing on:  I'd agree we need to look at these case by case to see what 
> standards
> are required for each, as they're not covered in "by announcement".
> 
> For example, R107 required a "Public Notice" to initiate a decision, but R107 
> itself
> describes exactly what has to be clear in this Notice, so there's a clarity 
> standard
> specifically for that.  Similarly, R2034 contains specific instructions for 
> what must
> be specified in a particular type of public message for it to have an effect. 
>  R2201
> is specific on what a "public challenge" consists of.
> 
> R1551 says that a "public document" has to be contained in a public message 
> (i.e. not
> referred to via hash).  If the document is a report, R2143 says that "the 
> publication
> of all such information" is required (i.e. *all* of the info must be public).
> 
> R991 has a completely different sense of the word public: "...to determine 
> public 
> confidence..." but that's descriptive, can't see a legal problem there.
> 
> I agree that Support/Object is fairly loose and you may be able to get away 
> with some
> unclarity there!  I think you tried a scam on that one already that was 
> rejected, but
> can't remember which case that was...
> 
> -G.
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

...I also missed all of those other uses of "Public", sorry. Ctrl+F isn't
useful to browse the ruleset when it's so large and there are so many
references to a single term.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> >But so far a good 90% of your scams just trace back to poor or limited
> reading of the rules.
> From your point of view, likely so. Imo its hardly as much, but still an
> uncomfortable amount. I think its taken as much because I sometimes have
> different opinions on what the rules mean. (for example, that everything is
> regulated, which people disagree with. It's not that I'm reading the rule
> incorrectly - it's that my processing of it can be considered incorrect.
> iirc there's one other person who believes that everything is regulated
> too, but its certainly not a majority. It's one of those things that can be
> taken as that "I'm reading the rules in a poor way", I believe. Is my
> opinion "poor" then? I don't know. I'm fairly convinced though, it's just
> hard to convince others of it.)
>
> I disagree with that Public is explicitly defined. "Public message", yes.
> "Public X" in general? I don't believe so. "Public challenge" isn't
> explicitly defined to need to be a public message, just a challenge which
> is "Public" (which, via your trick, if it works, could be encrypted). So
> "Public" itself isn't defined in general.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > I feel like a lot of the shielding is going to be invisible meta-rules
>> ("public means
>> > that it needs to be sent to the public fora", "the pledge needs to be
>> public itself and
>> > understandable", etc). Is there an Agoran slang term for invisible
>> meta-rules? Something
>> > neutral and easy to use. Game convention? Cultural rules?
>>
>> Oh, and on this:  reading comprehension is nice.  You should try it.
>> Public is explicitly
>> defined in R478 - if there's something missing for you after reading that
>> rule, let us
>> know what in specific.  And the Pledge question is exactly what I'm
>> contesting in my
>> CFJ, as that one isn't clear and there's no past precedent/custom.
>>
>> Your scams seem to miss a lot of plain and clearly-written rule text.
>> That's not to say
>> there aren't "customs".  These customs, hopefully traceable back to past
>> precedents,
>> only function where, by R217, the rules are "silent, inconsistent, and
>> unclear."  And
>> if those customs are based on old rules, and no longer apply in the new
>> rules, we follow
>> the rules when we discover that via CFJ.
>>
>> But so far a good 90% of your scams just trace back to poor or limited
>> reading of the
>> rules.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

>But so far a good 90% of your scams just trace back to poor or limited
reading of the rules.
>From your point of view, likely so. Imo its hardly as much, but still an
uncomfortable amount. I think its taken as much because I sometimes have
different opinions on what the rules mean. (for example, that everything is
regulated, which people disagree with. It's not that I'm reading the rule
incorrectly - it's that my processing of it can be considered incorrect.
iirc there's one other person who believes that everything is regulated
too, but its certainly not a majority. It's one of those things that can be
taken as that "I'm reading the rules in a poor way", I believe. Is my
opinion "poor" then? I don't know. I'm fairly convinced though, it's just
hard to convince others of it.)

I disagree with that Public is explicitly defined. "Public message", yes.
"Public X" in general? I don't believe so. "Public challenge" isn't
explicitly defined to need to be a public message, just a challenge which
is "Public" (which, via your trick, if it works, could be encrypted). So
"Public" itself isn't defined in general.


On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I feel like a lot of the shielding is going to be invisible meta-rules
> ("public means
> > that it needs to be sent to the public fora", "the pledge needs to be
> public itself and
> > understandable", etc). Is there an Agoran slang term for invisible
> meta-rules? Something
> > neutral and easy to use. Game convention? Cultural rules?
>
> Oh, and on this:  reading comprehension is nice.  You should try it.
> Public is explicitly
> defined in R478 - if there's something missing for you after reading that
> rule, let us
> know what in specific.  And the Pledge question is exactly what I'm
> contesting in my
> CFJ, as that one isn't clear and there's no past precedent/custom.
>
> Your scams seem to miss a lot of plain and clearly-written rule text.
> That's not to say
> there aren't "customs".  These customs, hopefully traceable back to past
> precedents,
> only function where, by R217, the rules are "silent, inconsistent, and
> unclear."  And
> if those customs are based on old rules, and no longer apply in the new
> rules, we follow
> the rules when we discover that via CFJ.
>
> But so far a good 90% of your scams just trace back to poor or limited
> reading of the
> rules.
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> If that shielding doesn't get in the way, I'm guessing the trick would apply 
>> to
>> "publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an 
>> announcement
>> of intent to perform the action" too? Basically anything "public" but that 
>> isn't
>> explicitly grounded in the usual defenses. Like "Public Document" in a 
>> couple other
>> rules.
>
> Continuing on:  I'd agree we need to look at these case by case to see what 
> standards
> are required for each, as they're not covered in "by announcement".
>
> For example, R107 required a "Public Notice" to initiate a decision, but R107 
> itself
> describes exactly what has to be clear in this Notice, so there's a clarity 
> standard
> specifically for that.  Similarly, R2034 contains specific instructions for 
> what must
> be specified in a particular type of public message for it to have an effect. 
>  R2201
> is specific on what a "public challenge" consists of.
>
> R1551 says that a "public document" has to be contained in a public message 
> (i.e. not
> referred to via hash).  If the document is a report, R2143 says that "the 
> publication
> of all such information" is required (i.e. *all* of the info must be public).
>
> R991 has a completely different sense of the word public: "...to determine 
> public
> confidence..." but that's descriptive, can't see a legal problem there.
>
> I agree that Support/Object is fairly loose and you may be able to get away 
> with some
> unclarity there!  I think you tried a scam on that one already that was 
> rejected, but
> can't remember which case that was...
>
> -G.
>
>

i don't remember the case reference, but i remember that eir
support/object "scam" was to attempt to withdraw my objection to an
announcement that required a certain number of objections (which was
patched after ais and nichdel used it in the most recent win anyways
afaik, and failed because of that patch)

unless there was another "scam," they all run together to me lately.

-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> If that shielding doesn't get in the way, I'm guessing the trick would apply 
> to 
> "publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an 
> announcement
> of intent to perform the action" too? Basically anything "public" but that 
> isn't
> explicitly grounded in the usual defenses. Like "Public Document" in a couple 
> other
> rules.

Continuing on:  I'd agree we need to look at these case by case to see what 
standards
are required for each, as they're not covered in "by announcement".

For example, R107 required a "Public Notice" to initiate a decision, but R107 
itself
describes exactly what has to be clear in this Notice, so there's a clarity 
standard
specifically for that.  Similarly, R2034 contains specific instructions for 
what must
be specified in a particular type of public message for it to have an effect.  
R2201
is specific on what a "public challenge" consists of.

R1551 says that a "public document" has to be contained in a public message 
(i.e. not
referred to via hash).  If the document is a report, R2143 says that "the 
publication
of all such information" is required (i.e. *all* of the info must be public).

R991 has a completely different sense of the word public: "...to determine 
public 
confidence..." but that's descriptive, can't see a legal problem there.

I agree that Support/Object is fairly loose and you may be able to get away 
with some
unclarity there!  I think you tried a scam on that one already that was 
rejected, but
can't remember which case that was...

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Sadly, I must concur with G. in his assessment of your scams. I appreciate his 
willingness to engage with evidence in response to your scams as I considered 
referencing the definition, but thought better of it.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:33 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> I feel like a lot of the shielding is going to be invisible meta-rules 
>> ("public means
>> that it needs to be sent to the public fora", "the pledge needs to be public 
>> itself and
>> understandable", etc). Is there an Agoran slang term for invisible 
>> meta-rules? Something
>> neutral and easy to use. Game convention? Cultural rules?
> 
> Oh, and on this:  reading comprehension is nice.  You should try it.  Public 
> is explicitly
> defined in R478 - if there's something missing for you after reading that 
> rule, let us
> know what in specific.  And the Pledge question is exactly what I'm 
> contesting in my
> CFJ, as that one isn't clear and there's no past precedent/custom.
> 
> Your scams seem to miss a lot of plain and clearly-written rule text.  That's 
> not to say
> there aren't "customs".  These customs, hopefully traceable back to past 
> precedents,
> only function where, by R217, the rules are "silent, inconsistent, and 
> unclear."  And
> if those customs are based on old rules, and no longer apply in the new 
> rules, we follow
> the rules when we discover that via CFJ.
> 
> But so far a good 90% of your scams just trace back to poor or limited 
> reading of the
> rules.
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I feel like a lot of the shielding is going to be invisible meta-rules 
> ("public means 
> that it needs to be sent to the public fora", "the pledge needs to be public 
> itself and
> understandable", etc). Is there an Agoran slang term for invisible 
> meta-rules? Something
> neutral and easy to use. Game convention? Cultural rules?

Oh, and on this:  reading comprehension is nice.  You should try it.  Public is 
explicitly
defined in R478 - if there's something missing for you after reading that rule, 
let us
know what in specific.  And the Pledge question is exactly what I'm contesting 
in my
CFJ, as that one isn't clear and there's no past precedent/custom.

Your scams seem to miss a lot of plain and clearly-written rule text.  That's 
not to say
there aren't "customs".  These customs, hopefully traceable back to past 
precedents,
only function where, by R217, the rules are "silent, inconsistent, and 
unclear."  And
if those customs are based on old rules, and no longer apply in the new rules, 
we follow
the rules when we discover that via CFJ.

But so far a good 90% of your scams just trace back to poor or limited reading 
of the 
rules.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >that say that an action done by announcement has to be intelligible to 
> anyoneAll of the japanese isn't intelligible to me, yet it doesn't seem 
> to have broken that, regardless of what you believe

Every actual by-announcement Agoran action that has been attempted in Japanese
has been CFJ'd, as far as I can see.  And I think they all failed.  In CFJs
3471 and 3472, for example, two such actions failed.

The availability *to everyone* of a translator that does an "ok job" at 
translating
some basics is why the actions were considered at all.  But even close and 
fairly
clear machine translations were thrown out in 3471 and 3472.

The only one that succeeded, I think, was registration, and registration has 
special
dispensation written into the rules - the rules specifically allow you to be 
more
unclear when registering, which in combination with the machine translation
available was judged sufficient.

If you re-read CFJ 1460, which was the Turkish one, it also specifically makes
an example, that if understanding requires solving some insoluble mathematical
(like, say, back-hashing), it doesn't succeed in communicating an action.
So if you said "I transfer (a trivial-to-solve mathematical puzzle)'s worth of
shinies", it would work, if the puzzle was trivial enough for the typical 
Agoran using public information.  But a hard puzzle (including hashing) 
wouldn't.

But - and you're correct here - the other "successful" Japanese one was for
Pledges specifically!  And you raise a very good point there.

o, you seem to have accepted that a pledge in Japanese, of very limited
comprehension to me, and with limited enforceability due to translation issues
(even with the translator) is still some kind of publicly-made pledge.  Why 
does 
this case differ to you?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

>that say that an action done by announcement has to be intelligible to
anyone
All of the japanese isn't intelligible to me, yet it doesn't seem to have
broken that, regardless of what you believe (I understand your Cantus but I
doubt people should change their (already debated) convictions because it
makes someone unhappy. If I debate something with someone and after a good
round of it, am not convinced, I'm certainly not going to change opinion if
the other person declares that they're very unhappy about my conviction. I
know your Cantus is more than just "I'm unhappy", but that portion
shouldn't be part of what changes people's minds, it should be the
arguments themselves, which seem to have been dealt with already or are
things people should have already had in mind. I haven't seen replies to it
since though, so I'm still not too sure on the status of that. But I assume
people are still unconvinced, just that they'll avoid the topic out of
politeness). I was going to piggyback on that too. Plenty of (japan name
here)'s actions and Agencies and such haven't been removed/declared
illegal, so I assume that cryptic stuff like that still has standing or
leverage I can lawyer with.

>publicly-made pledge
I feel like a lot of the shielding is going to be invisible meta-rules
("public means that it needs to be sent to the public fora", "the pledge
needs to be public itself and understandable", etc). Is there an Agoran
slang term for invisible meta-rules? Something neutral and easy to use.
Game convention? Cultural rules?

If that shielding doesn't get in the way, I'm guessing the trick would
apply to "publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support
 (syn. "consent") for an
announcement of intent to perform the action" too? Basically anything
"public" but that isn't explicitly grounded in the usual defenses. Like
"Public Document" in a couple other rules.


On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Then from there, start to vie for that I only need to send the
> information to
> > whoever is affected and the officer in question (for example, if I give
> bob 2
> > shinies, I'd only need to give hash translation to bob an the
> shiny-officer
> > and then enjoy secrecy until the officer posts their report, which could
> be
> > valuable in certain cases).
>
> This would clearly fail for anything that has to be done "by announcement".
> There's strong case law (many precedents, I won't summarize) that say that
> an action done by announcement has to be intelligible to anyone (i.e. to
> the public) based on the publicly posted info.  That's what "unambiguously
> and clearly specifying" means in R478:
>Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
>announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
>and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
>it.
>
> *IF* my trick works, it only works because of the weird phrase
> "publicly-made
> pledge" in R2450, which doesn't include a phrase like "a person CAN make
> a pledge by announcement".  This leaves it unclear as to whether the text
> of
> the pledge need be included, or whether a public statement of "I make a
> pledge"
> is enough to say I "made" it in public, even if some details are hidden
> (but
> verifiable).
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Cuddle Beam]

Sure, all yours.

And Ais523: We have serious CFJs about... a joke. Sending a nickle. I don't
know what's the standard for CFJs right now, but people seem to be grasping
at straws at what could be turned to become interesting. I'm alright with
sending my CFJ at a period of relative lull like this (which I believe will
be solved soon once the economy proposal gets settled).

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:36 PM, grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:24 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >> I'd prefer to spend a CFJ slot be spent but it's not an urgent CFJ at
> all.
> >> I'm be up for retracting it if you pledge that you'll resubmit it when
> the
> >> CFJ queue is empty enough (and if the economy eventually makes CFJs
> have a
> >> price, I'll refund you).
> >
> > Why would I do something like that? I was hoping to avoid a CFJ
> > altogether in order to avoid a judge having to waste eir time on
> > explaining yet a gain why such a ridiculously implausible scam doesn't
> > work. Delaying it wouldn't really help at all; there isn't a judge
> > shortage, just a shortage of tolerance for that sort of nonsense.
> >
> > However, if you won't take it from me, I can find an uninvolved judge
> > who will, I'm pretty sure, just reiterate the point that everyone else
> > has been making. I was just hoping to avoid the effort for everyone
> > (and the permanent embarrassment it'll create in the CFJ records).
> >
> > --
> > ais523
>
> I'd be happy to knock it out today, assuming Cuddlebeam doesn't bar me
> as soon as e sees this message.
>
>
> -grok
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Then from there, start to vie for that I only need to send the information to 
> whoever is affected and the officer in question (for example, if I give bob 2 
> shinies, I'd only need to give hash translation to bob an the shiny-officer 
> and then enjoy secrecy until the officer posts their report, which could be 
> valuable in certain cases).

This would clearly fail for anything that has to be done "by announcement".
There's strong case law (many precedents, I won't summarize) that say that
an action done by announcement has to be intelligible to anyone (i.e. to
the public) based on the publicly posted info.  That's what "unambiguously
and clearly specifying" means in R478:
   Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
   announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
   and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
   it.

*IF* my trick works, it only works because of the weird phrase "publicly-made
pledge" in R2450, which doesn't include a phrase like "a person CAN make
a pledge by announcement".  This leaves it unclear as to whether the text of
the pledge need be included, or whether a public statement of "I make a pledge"
is enough to say I "made" it in public, even if some details are hidden (but
verifiable).

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Cuddle Beam]

Exactly.

Wouldn't then withdrawing need to have something like, "something
something, you can withdraw by specifying a ballot, and then the specified
ballot is withdrawn"? Or why is arbitrary choice allowed there and not in
making proposal text or something? (which seems to need explicit "yes, you
can specify it" in order for us to be able to actually specify it.)

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
>> If we don't specify that proposal text can be arbitrary, it can't be
>> arbitrary? We aren't explicitly authorized to put anything we want, just
>> that a text is there.
>>
>>
> ​It's not about whether it's arbitrary, it's about whether we're empowered
> to specify that thing and have it have an effect. The rules governing
> proposals cover this:
>
> 2350: "A player  CAN
>  create a proposal
>  by announcement, *specifying
> its text* and optionally specifying any of the following attributes:"​
>
> 106: "Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal
>  that takes effect CAN
>  and does, as part of its
> effect, *apply the changes that it specifies.*"
>
> You claim you can create a Murphy Trust Token and it has an effect. My
> argument is that, from a legal perspective, it's not a Trust Token issued
> by Murphy because there is nothing in the rules that allows you to specify
> that and have it affect the gamestate.
>
> I submit the above as gratuitous arguments.
>
>
>
>> ...I made a diagram. Hopefully it proves that I'm not Faking (can "No
>> Faking" be pulled against any interpretation you disagree with?) but
>> defending a position:
>> https://i.gyazo.com/100225cef8b9829cccf2955ec5eb52df.png
>>
>> (I assume that Trust Tokens are created when issued.)
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Nicholas Evans 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2017 09:17, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
>>>
>>> And yes, I agree with that entirely, but I'm considering it from a
>>> different framework. I'll relate it back to (and I'm sorry for going around
>>> your scam so often, but it's a recent one and it's also about "a X") "a
>>> ballot".
>>>
>>> "A ballot". That's "any" ballot, yes? Any ballot of your choosing.
>>> So "a Trust Token" is "any Trust Token of my choosing"?
>>>
>>> Unlike the ballot thing, where you select from existing things and do an
>>> operation on it - making it be withdrawn, Trust Tokens create things (I
>>> assume), so you need to select from an imaginary thing and then do an
>>> operation on that - making it exist. (For example, when you create "An
>>> Estate" - note that "AN" there! - you take an imaginary - and arbitrary! -
>>> non-Estate then do the operation of making it exist in "realspace").
>>>
>>> Again, this is pretty obscure/abstract though.
>>>
>>>
>>> No it's not. You just fail to see the difference between specifying and
>>> creating a legal fiction. The latter requires rule authorization, like how
>>> the rules tell you what can be specified about an estate.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Alex Smith 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:32 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
 > I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this
 method,
 > I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such
 that
 > would have the same characteristics as if that person had
 created/granted
 > it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant "a Token",
 which
 > can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't exist by
 virtue
 > of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for example,
 you
 > could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could generate, and
 > that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a Token").

 Creating an object with arbitrary properties is only possible if doing
 so isn't impossible, rather tautologously. Creating an object with the
 property of having been created by someone else (which is the property
 you're trying to set) is a contradiction on its face.

 It's certainly possible that a rule could permit a legal fiction to be
 created that an entity had been created by someone other than the
 person who actually created it (Agencies pretty much do this, for
 example). But the rules don't let people create arbitrary legal
 fictions; legal fictions only come about when the rules try to
 contradict established fact (because the rules /always/ win disputes).
 On the other hand, if there's no contradiction between the rules and
 reality (e.g. when the rules check to see who created something and
 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

yay, merit for me! ty.

(I wonder if its possible to connect this to the other discovery that
unregulated actions actually can't touch the gamestate lol.)

Anyway, the hashed argument was just "lol I like boobs". Intentionally made
to be inane so that it could be easily detected if it was in the Judgement
or not, and if I got carded for it (it's intentionally taunting one too),
that would confirm that I made an effective Agora change of a sort
(assuming that CFJ Arguments are gamestate or tracked or something, but
apparently it's just unregulated) with asymmetric information.

Then from there, start to vie for that I only need to send the information
to whoever is affected and the officer in question (for example, if I give
bob 2 shinies, I'd only need to give hash translation to bob an the
shiny-officer and then enjoy secrecy until the officer posts their report,
which could be valuable in certain cases).

But if the argument thing for CFJs are unregulated, then not much I can
really do from there lol. Oh well.


On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I'm piggybacking on Kerim's arguments/reasoning because I'd like to know
> if encryption
> > (and eventually public asymmetric information in general, really) can be
> applied to
> > Gratuitous Arguments (only the Judge needs them, yes? Just like the
> translation of the
> > hash, which is also "evidence" for the case), and I feel their lawyering
> for this case
> > would in most cases be better than mine, so I'm copying it.  I present
> the following as
> > gratuitous arguments to that CFJ.
> > 1) 585b7880ef0394acb586274ba623ecd0232fbdc2
> >   1.1) The above is a 16-character string, in a SHA-1 hash
> >   1.2) At the option of the judge, I will send them em a document
> (hereafter "Cuddle's
> > Original") which is the decoded version of the argument stated in 1),
> which plainly and
> > clearly specifies a counterargument. (I'll leave it up to the judge
> whether to publish it).
>
> You have a misconception of gratuitous arguments.  You're free to have any
> kind of
> private conversation with the judge that you like.  Convince em in a
> private email.
> Bribe em if you want!  Do it in secret or in discussion.  Whatever.
>
> The judge might refer your arguments in eir opinion, it's up to em.  In
> past cases,
> the judge has sometimes said "I agree with [random person's] arguments"
> but since
> those arguments might have appeared in discussion, there's no record of
> them.
> Annoying for historians and future judges!  So, as a courtesy, the
> caselog-keeper
> has a tradition of including well-labeled public arguments in the case log.
> This informal arrangement helps capture substantive arguments or important
> context
> for the record, regardless of who publishes them.
>
> But there is no requirement for the caselog-keeper to do so.  For once,
> you've
> hit on something that we can truly say is "unregulated".
>
> In this case, since there is no publication of any arguments (only a
> hash), I won't
> put anything in the case log.  Whatever you send to the judge can be used
> by em
> or not.
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 21:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > If I had, most such documents would be nonsense and IRRELEVANT.  If
> > I broke the Original, that would be enough to "convict" me, so any others
> > wouldn't matter.  If I obeyed the Original, there would still be some very
> > low but nonzero chance (unknowable to me or anyone else) that I was still
> > guilty, if some other document existed that is an intelligible proscription
> > with the same hash and length.  But I'd argue that the odds are so low
> > that it is below any standard of evidence to assume its existence.
> 
> Imagine documents of the form "post the string '…'", where the "…" is a
> string 64 characters long. If we assume a 256-character character set
> (which is kind-of implied by the way that SHA-1 is defined), then we
> have (2 to the power of 64×8) = (2 to the power of 512) possible
> documents meeting this description. (Some will be ambiguous due to
> mismatched quotes or the like, but the vast majority will unambiguously
> describe an action you're capable of taking.)

Oh silly silly me, I got caught up in the information density of actual
English sentences and missed this painfully obvious counterargument.

Since the "I'll obey every such message" was a theoretical add-on, I trust
the problem is reasonable solved if, say, I specified a message length of
<=40 bytes and a hash length of 128 bytes?  Giving <1e97 plaintext messages
and 1e154 possible hashes seems like a suitably high probability of
no collision (or at least that any rare collision with the specified action
text would be nonsense)?

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I'm piggybacking on Kerim's arguments/reasoning because I'd like to know if 
> encryption
> (and eventually public asymmetric information in general, really) can be 
> applied to 
> Gratuitous Arguments (only the Judge needs them, yes? Just like the 
> translation of the 
> hash, which is also "evidence" for the case), and I feel their lawyering for 
> this case
> would in most cases be better than mine, so I'm copying it.  I present the 
> following as
> gratuitous arguments to that CFJ.
> 1) 585b7880ef0394acb586274ba623ecd0232fbdc2
>   1.1) The above is a 16-character string, in a SHA-1 hash
>   1.2) At the option of the judge, I will send them em a document (hereafter 
> "Cuddle's 
> Original") which is the decoded version of the argument stated in 1), which 
> plainly and 
> clearly specifies a counterargument. (I'll leave it up to the judge whether 
> to publish it).

You have a misconception of gratuitous arguments.  You're free to have any kind 
of
private conversation with the judge that you like.  Convince em in a private 
email.
Bribe em if you want!  Do it in secret or in discussion.  Whatever.

The judge might refer your arguments in eir opinion, it's up to em.  In past 
cases, 
the judge has sometimes said "I agree with [random person's] arguments" but 
since 
those arguments might have appeared in discussion, there's no record of them.  
Annoying for historians and future judges!  So, as a courtesy, the 
caselog-keeper 
has a tradition of including well-labeled public arguments in the case log.
This informal arrangement helps capture substantive arguments or important 
context
for the record, regardless of who publishes them.

But there is no requirement for the caselog-keeper to do so.  For once, you've
hit on something that we can truly say is "unregulated".

In this case, since there is no publication of any arguments (only a hash), I 
won't
put anything in the case log.  Whatever you send to the judge can be used by em
or not.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Nicholas Evans]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> If we don't specify that proposal text can be arbitrary, it can't be
> arbitrary? We aren't explicitly authorized to put anything we want, just
> that a text is there.
>
>
​It's not about whether it's arbitrary, it's about whether we're empowered
to specify that thing and have it have an effect. The rules governing
proposals cover this:

2350: "A player  CAN
 create a proposal
 by announcement, *specifying its
text* and optionally specifying any of the following attributes:"​

106: "Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal
 that takes effect CAN
 and does, as part of its effect,
*apply the changes that it specifies.*"

You claim you can create a Murphy Trust Token and it has an effect. My
argument is that, from a legal perspective, it's not a Trust Token issued
by Murphy because there is nothing in the rules that allows you to specify
that and have it affect the gamestate.

I submit the above as gratuitous arguments.



> ...I made a diagram. Hopefully it proves that I'm not Faking (can "No
> Faking" be pulled against any interpretation you disagree with?) but
> defending a position:
> https://i.gyazo.com/100225cef8b9829cccf2955ec5eb52df.png
>
> (I assume that Trust Tokens are created when issued.)
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 20, 2017 09:17, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
>>
>> And yes, I agree with that entirely, but I'm considering it from a
>> different framework. I'll relate it back to (and I'm sorry for going around
>> your scam so often, but it's a recent one and it's also about "a X") "a
>> ballot".
>>
>> "A ballot". That's "any" ballot, yes? Any ballot of your choosing.
>> So "a Trust Token" is "any Trust Token of my choosing"?
>>
>> Unlike the ballot thing, where you select from existing things and do an
>> operation on it - making it be withdrawn, Trust Tokens create things (I
>> assume), so you need to select from an imaginary thing and then do an
>> operation on that - making it exist. (For example, when you create "An
>> Estate" - note that "AN" there! - you take an imaginary - and arbitrary! -
>> non-Estate then do the operation of making it exist in "realspace").
>>
>> Again, this is pretty obscure/abstract though.
>>
>>
>> No it's not. You just fail to see the difference between specifying and
>> creating a legal fiction. The latter requires rule authorization, like how
>> the rules tell you what can be specified about an estate.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Alex Smith 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:32 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>> > I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this
>>> method,
>>> > I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such
>>> that
>>> > would have the same characteristics as if that person had
>>> created/granted
>>> > it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant "a Token",
>>> which
>>> > can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't exist by
>>> virtue
>>> > of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for example,
>>> you
>>> > could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could generate, and
>>> > that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a Token").
>>>
>>> Creating an object with arbitrary properties is only possible if doing
>>> so isn't impossible, rather tautologously. Creating an object with the
>>> property of having been created by someone else (which is the property
>>> you're trying to set) is a contradiction on its face.
>>>
>>> It's certainly possible that a rule could permit a legal fiction to be
>>> created that an entity had been created by someone other than the
>>> person who actually created it (Agencies pretty much do this, for
>>> example). But the rules don't let people create arbitrary legal
>>> fictions; legal fictions only come about when the rules try to
>>> contradict established fact (because the rules /always/ win disputes).
>>> On the other hand, if there's no contradiction between the rules and
>>> reality (e.g. when the rules check to see who created something and
>>> don't specify how that's calculated), the obvious principle is "the
>>> ordinary-language definition is used", rather than "the person who
>>> performed the action can cause arbitrary legal fictions in the
>>> results". At some point, you have to defer to ordinary language when
>>> interpreting the meaning of rules, otherwise you'd never be able to get
>>> started understanding anything.
>>>
>>> See also CFJ 1936 (which was an attempted scam along essentially the
>>> same lines as yours, but considerably more plausible; it didn't work).
>>>
>>> --
>>> ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3541 assigned to grok

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 22:03 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>> > I pay nichdel a nickel's worth of shinies for taking over as
>> > Assessor.
>>
>> I CFJ on the statement “A nickle’s worth of shinies is exactly 5
>> shinies.”
>
> This is CFJ 3541. I assign it to grok.
>
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor


I intend to publish judgment on this CFJ in the coming hours. If there
are any further gratuitous arguments (as there have already been
several), I would request you get them in as soon as possible.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Cuddle Beam]

(However when you create a certain X, it then needs to meet requisites to
actually spawn, if there are any. I'm assuming that, like with ballots, if
its "a thing" without any requisites, it can be any)

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> If we don't specify that proposal text can be arbitrary, it can't be
> arbitrary? We aren't explicitly authorized to put anything we want, just
> that a text is there.
>
> ...I made a diagram. Hopefully it proves that I'm not Faking (can "No
> Faking" be pulled against any interpretation you disagree with?) but
> defending a position:
> https://i.gyazo.com/100225cef8b9829cccf2955ec5eb52df.png
>
> (I assume that Trust Tokens are created when issued.)
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 20, 2017 09:17, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
>>
>> And yes, I agree with that entirely, but I'm considering it from a
>> different framework. I'll relate it back to (and I'm sorry for going around
>> your scam so often, but it's a recent one and it's also about "a X") "a
>> ballot".
>>
>> "A ballot". That's "any" ballot, yes? Any ballot of your choosing.
>> So "a Trust Token" is "any Trust Token of my choosing"?
>>
>> Unlike the ballot thing, where you select from existing things and do an
>> operation on it - making it be withdrawn, Trust Tokens create things (I
>> assume), so you need to select from an imaginary thing and then do an
>> operation on that - making it exist. (For example, when you create "An
>> Estate" - note that "AN" there! - you take an imaginary - and arbitrary! -
>> non-Estate then do the operation of making it exist in "realspace").
>>
>> Again, this is pretty obscure/abstract though.
>>
>>
>> No it's not. You just fail to see the difference between specifying and
>> creating a legal fiction. The latter requires rule authorization, like how
>> the rules tell you what can be specified about an estate.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Alex Smith 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:32 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>> > I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this
>>> method,
>>> > I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such
>>> that
>>> > would have the same characteristics as if that person had
>>> created/granted
>>> > it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant "a Token",
>>> which
>>> > can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't exist by
>>> virtue
>>> > of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for example,
>>> you
>>> > could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could generate, and
>>> > that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a Token").
>>>
>>> Creating an object with arbitrary properties is only possible if doing
>>> so isn't impossible, rather tautologously. Creating an object with the
>>> property of having been created by someone else (which is the property
>>> you're trying to set) is a contradiction on its face.
>>>
>>> It's certainly possible that a rule could permit a legal fiction to be
>>> created that an entity had been created by someone other than the
>>> person who actually created it (Agencies pretty much do this, for
>>> example). But the rules don't let people create arbitrary legal
>>> fictions; legal fictions only come about when the rules try to
>>> contradict established fact (because the rules /always/ win disputes).
>>> On the other hand, if there's no contradiction between the rules and
>>> reality (e.g. when the rules check to see who created something and
>>> don't specify how that's calculated), the obvious principle is "the
>>> ordinary-language definition is used", rather than "the person who
>>> performed the action can cause arbitrary legal fictions in the
>>> results". At some point, you have to defer to ordinary language when
>>> interpreting the meaning of rules, otherwise you'd never be able to get
>>> started understanding anything.
>>>
>>> See also CFJ 1936 (which was an attempted scam along essentially the
>>> same lines as yours, but considerably more plausible; it didn't work).
>>>
>>> --
>>> ais523
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Cuddle Beam]

If we don't specify that proposal text can be arbitrary, it can't be
arbitrary? We aren't explicitly authorized to put anything we want, just
that a text is there.

...I made a diagram. Hopefully it proves that I'm not Faking (can "No
Faking" be pulled against any interpretation you disagree with?) but
defending a position:
https://i.gyazo.com/100225cef8b9829cccf2955ec5eb52df.png

(I assume that Trust Tokens are created when issued.)

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:

>
>
> On Jul 20, 2017 09:17, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
>
> And yes, I agree with that entirely, but I'm considering it from a
> different framework. I'll relate it back to (and I'm sorry for going around
> your scam so often, but it's a recent one and it's also about "a X") "a
> ballot".
>
> "A ballot". That's "any" ballot, yes? Any ballot of your choosing.
> So "a Trust Token" is "any Trust Token of my choosing"?
>
> Unlike the ballot thing, where you select from existing things and do an
> operation on it - making it be withdrawn, Trust Tokens create things (I
> assume), so you need to select from an imaginary thing and then do an
> operation on that - making it exist. (For example, when you create "An
> Estate" - note that "AN" there! - you take an imaginary - and arbitrary! -
> non-Estate then do the operation of making it exist in "realspace").
>
> Again, this is pretty obscure/abstract though.
>
>
> No it's not. You just fail to see the difference between specifying and
> creating a legal fiction. The latter requires rule authorization, like how
> the rules tell you what can be specified about an estate.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:32 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this
>> method,
>> > I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such that
>> > would have the same characteristics as if that person had
>> created/granted
>> > it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant "a Token",
>> which
>> > can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't exist by
>> virtue
>> > of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for example, you
>> > could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could generate, and
>> > that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a Token").
>>
>> Creating an object with arbitrary properties is only possible if doing
>> so isn't impossible, rather tautologously. Creating an object with the
>> property of having been created by someone else (which is the property
>> you're trying to set) is a contradiction on its face.
>>
>> It's certainly possible that a rule could permit a legal fiction to be
>> created that an entity had been created by someone other than the
>> person who actually created it (Agencies pretty much do this, for
>> example). But the rules don't let people create arbitrary legal
>> fictions; legal fictions only come about when the rules try to
>> contradict established fact (because the rules /always/ win disputes).
>> On the other hand, if there's no contradiction between the rules and
>> reality (e.g. when the rules check to see who created something and
>> don't specify how that's calculated), the obvious principle is "the
>> ordinary-language definition is used", rather than "the person who
>> performed the action can cause arbitrary legal fictions in the
>> results". At some point, you have to defer to ordinary language when
>> interpreting the meaning of rules, otherwise you'd never be able to get
>> started understanding anything.
>>
>> See also CFJ 1936 (which was an attempted scam along essentially the
>> same lines as yours, but considerably more plausible; it didn't work).
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Nicholas Evans]

On Jul 20, 2017 09:17, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

And yes, I agree with that entirely, but I'm considering it from a
different framework. I'll relate it back to (and I'm sorry for going around
your scam so often, but it's a recent one and it's also about "a X") "a
ballot".

"A ballot". That's "any" ballot, yes? Any ballot of your choosing.
So "a Trust Token" is "any Trust Token of my choosing"?

Unlike the ballot thing, where you select from existing things and do an
operation on it - making it be withdrawn, Trust Tokens create things (I
assume), so you need to select from an imaginary thing and then do an
operation on that - making it exist. (For example, when you create "An
Estate" - note that "AN" there! - you take an imaginary - and arbitrary! -
non-Estate then do the operation of making it exist in "realspace").

Again, this is pretty obscure/abstract though.


No it's not. You just fail to see the difference between specifying and
creating a legal fiction. The latter requires rule authorization, like how
the rules tell you what can be specified about an estate.


On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:32 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this
> method,
> > I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such that
> > would have the same characteristics as if that person had created/granted
> > it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant "a Token",
> which
> > can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't exist by
> virtue
> > of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for example, you
> > could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could generate, and
> > that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a Token").
>
> Creating an object with arbitrary properties is only possible if doing
> so isn't impossible, rather tautologously. Creating an object with the
> property of having been created by someone else (which is the property
> you're trying to set) is a contradiction on its face.
>
> It's certainly possible that a rule could permit a legal fiction to be
> created that an entity had been created by someone other than the
> person who actually created it (Agencies pretty much do this, for
> example). But the rules don't let people create arbitrary legal
> fictions; legal fictions only come about when the rules try to
> contradict established fact (because the rules /always/ win disputes).
> On the other hand, if there's no contradiction between the rules and
> reality (e.g. when the rules check to see who created something and
> don't specify how that's calculated), the obvious principle is "the
> ordinary-language definition is used", rather than "the person who
> performed the action can cause arbitrary legal fictions in the
> results". At some point, you have to defer to ordinary language when
> interpreting the meaning of rules, otherwise you'd never be able to get
> started understanding anything.
>
> See also CFJ 1936 (which was an attempted scam along essentially the
> same lines as yours, but considerably more plausible; it didn't work).
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Cuddle Beam]

And yes, I agree with that entirely, but I'm considering it from a
different framework. I'll relate it back to (and I'm sorry for going around
your scam so often, but it's a recent one and it's also about "a X") "a
ballot".

"A ballot". That's "any" ballot, yes? Any ballot of your choosing.
So "a Trust Token" is "any Trust Token of my choosing"?

Unlike the ballot thing, where you select from existing things and do an
operation on it - making it be withdrawn, Trust Tokens create things (I
assume), so you need to select from an imaginary thing and then do an
operation on that - making it exist. (For example, when you create "An
Estate" - note that "AN" there! - you take an imaginary - and arbitrary! -
non-Estate then do the operation of making it exist in "realspace").

Again, this is pretty obscure/abstract though.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:32 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this
> method,
> > I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such that
> > would have the same characteristics as if that person had created/granted
> > it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant "a Token",
> which
> > can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't exist by
> virtue
> > of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for example, you
> > could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could generate, and
> > that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a Token").
>
> Creating an object with arbitrary properties is only possible if doing
> so isn't impossible, rather tautologously. Creating an object with the
> property of having been created by someone else (which is the property
> you're trying to set) is a contradiction on its face.
>
> It's certainly possible that a rule could permit a legal fiction to be
> created that an entity had been created by someone other than the
> person who actually created it (Agencies pretty much do this, for
> example). But the rules don't let people create arbitrary legal
> fictions; legal fictions only come about when the rules try to
> contradict established fact (because the rules /always/ win disputes).
> On the other hand, if there's no contradiction between the rules and
> reality (e.g. when the rules check to see who created something and
> don't specify how that's calculated), the obvious principle is "the
> ordinary-language definition is used", rather than "the person who
> performed the action can cause arbitrary legal fictions in the
> results". At some point, you have to defer to ordinary language when
> interpreting the meaning of rules, otherwise you'd never be able to get
> started understanding anything.
>
> See also CFJ 1936 (which was an attempted scam along essentially the
> same lines as yours, but considerably more plausible; it didn't work).
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Nicholas Evans]

But it doesn't exist. It can just potentially exist. Just because 'a rotten
banana' or 'a Murphy trust token' are validly described and plausibly
existent things doesn't mean an instantiation currently exists, that you
have access to that instantiation, or that you can create that
instantiation.

On Jul 20, 2017 08:38, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> It kind of reminds me when I tried to give myself a "Badge that doesn't
> exist yet" (R2415: Any player CAN award a badge that does not yet exist)
> with a bunch of overpowered things because a badge with those overpowered
> things actually doesn't exist - so I can attempt to grant such an
> impossible badge.
>
> Although in the badge case it was more of trying to create stuff that
> doesn't exist while this Trust Token thing is for things that does exist
> (in certain circumstances) and trying to use the breadth of "a X" to access
> it.
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
>> I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this
>> method, I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such
>> that would have the same characteristics as if that person had
>> created/granted it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant
>> "a Token", which can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't
>> exist by virtue of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for
>> example, you could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could
>> generate, and that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a
>> Token").
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Nicholas Evans 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But nobody else created them. You're only claiming they did. I point my
>>> finger at CB for violation of No Faking. E can't possibly believe e can
>>> force otger players to create tokens.
>>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2017 08:25, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
>>>
 I'd prefer to spend a CFJ slot be spent but it's not an urgent CFJ at
 all. I'm be up for retracting it if you pledge that you'll resubmit it when
 the CFJ queue is empty enough (and if the economy eventually makes CFJs
 have a price, I'll refund you).

 The reasoning is a bit offshore, though, definitely. But a Trust Token
 that someone else has created *is* still "a Trust Token", after all.

 On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Alex Smith 
 wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:07 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Note R2452: "Any player can issue a Trust Token to another person by
> > announcement."
> >
> > Be a TrustToken[A, B] a Trust Token such that player A would issue to
> > player B if A posted a message of "I grant a Trust Token to B",
> where B is
> > Player B's name, to a-b;
> >
> > Once, for each player except Murphy, I issue a Trust Token[A, B] to
> Murphy,
> > where A is that player and B is Murphy, to Murphy.
>
> I don't think it holds up to logical scrutiny (or any kind of common
> sense) that you can create something in such a way that it was created
> by someone else. Or to put it another way, it's impossible to create an
> object with an arbitrary history, because history doesn't work like
> that.
>
> Will you retract the CFJ, or do I really have to assign it?
>
> --
> ais523
>


>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:32 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this method,
> I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such that
> would have the same characteristics as if that person had created/granted
> it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant "a Token", which
> can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't exist by virtue
> of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for example, you
> could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could generate, and
> that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a Token").

Creating an object with arbitrary properties is only possible if doing
so isn't impossible, rather tautologously. Creating an object with the
property of having been created by someone else (which is the property
you're trying to set) is a contradiction on its face.

It's certainly possible that a rule could permit a legal fiction to be
created that an entity had been created by someone other than the
person who actually created it (Agencies pretty much do this, for
example). But the rules don't let people create arbitrary legal
fictions; legal fictions only come about when the rules try to
contradict established fact (because the rules /always/ win disputes).
On the other hand, if there's no contradiction between the rules and
reality (e.g. when the rules check to see who created something and
don't specify how that's calculated), the obvious principle is "the
ordinary-language definition is used", rather than "the person who
performed the action can cause arbitrary legal fictions in the
results". At some point, you have to defer to ordinary language when
interpreting the meaning of rules, otherwise you'd never be able to get
started understanding anything.

See also CFJ 1936 (which was an attempted scam along essentially the
same lines as yours, but considerably more plausible; it didn't work).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Cuddle Beam]

It kind of reminds me when I tried to give myself a "Badge that doesn't
exist yet" (R2415: Any player CAN award a badge that does not yet exist)
with a bunch of overpowered things because a badge with those overpowered
things actually doesn't exist - so I can attempt to grant such an
impossible badge.

Although in the badge case it was more of trying to create stuff that
doesn't exist while this Trust Token thing is for things that does exist
(in certain circumstances) and trying to use the breadth of "a X" to access
it.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this
> method, I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such
> that would have the same characteristics as if that person had
> created/granted it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant
> "a Token", which can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't
> exist by virtue of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for
> example, you could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could
> generate, and that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a
> Token").
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:
>
>> But nobody else created them. You're only claiming they did. I point my
>> finger at CB for violation of No Faking. E can't possibly believe e can
>> force otger players to create tokens.
>>
>> On Jul 20, 2017 08:25, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
>>
>>> I'd prefer to spend a CFJ slot be spent but it's not an urgent CFJ at
>>> all. I'm be up for retracting it if you pledge that you'll resubmit it when
>>> the CFJ queue is empty enough (and if the economy eventually makes CFJs
>>> have a price, I'll refund you).
>>>
>>> The reasoning is a bit offshore, though, definitely. But a Trust Token
>>> that someone else has created *is* still "a Trust Token", after all.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Alex Smith 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:07 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
 > Note R2452: "Any player can issue a Trust Token to another person by
 > announcement."
 >
 > Be a TrustToken[A, B] a Trust Token such that player A would issue to
 > player B if A posted a message of "I grant a Trust Token to B", where
 B is
 > Player B's name, to a-b;
 >
 > Once, for each player except Murphy, I issue a Trust Token[A, B] to
 Murphy,
 > where A is that player and B is Murphy, to Murphy.

 I don't think it holds up to logical scrutiny (or any kind of common
 sense) that you can create something in such a way that it was created
 by someone else. Or to put it another way, it's impossible to create an
 object with an arbitrary history, because history doesn't work like
 that.

 Will you retract the CFJ, or do I really have to assign it?

 --
 ais523

>>>
>>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:24 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> I'd prefer to spend a CFJ slot be spent but it's not an urgent CFJ at all.
>> I'm be up for retracting it if you pledge that you'll resubmit it when the
>> CFJ queue is empty enough (and if the economy eventually makes CFJs have a
>> price, I'll refund you).
>
> Why would I do something like that? I was hoping to avoid a CFJ
> altogether in order to avoid a judge having to waste eir time on
> explaining yet a gain why such a ridiculously implausible scam doesn't
> work. Delaying it wouldn't really help at all; there isn't a judge
> shortage, just a shortage of tolerance for that sort of nonsense.
>
> However, if you won't take it from me, I can find an uninvolved judge
> who will, I'm pretty sure, just reiterate the point that everyone else
> has been making. I was just hoping to avoid the effort for everyone
> (and the permanent embarrassment it'll create in the CFJ records).
>
> --
> ais523

I'd be happy to knock it out today, assuming Cuddlebeam doesn't bar me
as soon as e sees this message.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Cuddle Beam]

I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this method,
I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such that
would have the same characteristics as if that person had created/granted
it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant "a Token", which
can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't exist by virtue
of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for example, you
could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could generate, and
that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a Token").

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:

> But nobody else created them. You're only claiming they did. I point my
> finger at CB for violation of No Faking. E can't possibly believe e can
> force otger players to create tokens.
>
> On Jul 20, 2017 08:25, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
>
>> I'd prefer to spend a CFJ slot be spent but it's not an urgent CFJ at
>> all. I'm be up for retracting it if you pledge that you'll resubmit it when
>> the CFJ queue is empty enough (and if the economy eventually makes CFJs
>> have a price, I'll refund you).
>>
>> The reasoning is a bit offshore, though, definitely. But a Trust Token
>> that someone else has created *is* still "a Trust Token", after all.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Alex Smith 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:07 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>> > Note R2452: "Any player can issue a Trust Token to another person by
>>> > announcement."
>>> >
>>> > Be a TrustToken[A, B] a Trust Token such that player A would issue to
>>> > player B if A posted a message of "I grant a Trust Token to B", where
>>> B is
>>> > Player B's name, to a-b;
>>> >
>>> > Once, for each player except Murphy, I issue a Trust Token[A, B] to
>>> Murphy,
>>> > where A is that player and B is Murphy, to Murphy.
>>>
>>> I don't think it holds up to logical scrutiny (or any kind of common
>>> sense) that you can create something in such a way that it was created
>>> by someone else. Or to put it another way, it's impossible to create an
>>> object with an arbitrary history, because history doesn't work like
>>> that.
>>>
>>> Will you retract the CFJ, or do I really have to assign it?
>>>
>>> --
>>> ais523
>>>
>>
>>

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Nicholas Evans]

But nobody else created them. You're only claiming they did. I point my
finger at CB for violation of No Faking. E can't possibly believe e can
force otger players to create tokens.

On Jul 20, 2017 08:25, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> I'd prefer to spend a CFJ slot be spent but it's not an urgent CFJ at all.
> I'm be up for retracting it if you pledge that you'll resubmit it when the
> CFJ queue is empty enough (and if the economy eventually makes CFJs have a
> price, I'll refund you).
>
> The reasoning is a bit offshore, though, definitely. But a Trust Token
> that someone else has created *is* still "a Trust Token", after all.
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:07 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > Note R2452: "Any player can issue a Trust Token to another person by
>> > announcement."
>> >
>> > Be a TrustToken[A, B] a Trust Token such that player A would issue to
>> > player B if A posted a message of "I grant a Trust Token to B", where B
>> is
>> > Player B's name, to a-b;
>> >
>> > Once, for each player except Murphy, I issue a Trust Token[A, B] to
>> Murphy,
>> > where A is that player and B is Murphy, to Murphy.
>>
>> I don't think it holds up to logical scrutiny (or any kind of common
>> sense) that you can create something in such a way that it was created
>> by someone else. Or to put it another way, it's impossible to create an
>> object with an arbitrary history, because history doesn't work like
>> that.
>>
>> Will you retract the CFJ, or do I really have to assign it?
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Nicholas Evans]

You when by bein issued trust tokens _by_ players, so I don't think it
matters who tge token is supposedly originally from. Even if you
successfully issued a Murphy trust token to me, it was still issued by you
and not Murphy.

On Jul 20, 2017 08:07, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> This isn't consequential to other actions/offices, it's just related to
> Trust Tokens which people have been hardly using lately anyway.  Here, I
> attempt to grant Trust Tokens via that "a Trust Token" means any kind of
> Trust Token, much how "a banana" can be a rotten banana, my banana, your
> banana, a ripe banana, etc.
>
> Note that this treads into fairly abstract territory due to how open "a X"
> can be via the banana reasoning.
>
>
> *--
>
> Note R2452: "Any player can issue a Trust Token to another person by
> announcement."
>
> Be a TrustToken[A, B] a Trust Token such that player A would issue to
> player B if A posted a message of "I grant a Trust Token to B", where B is
> Player B's name, to a-b;
>
> Once, for each player except Murphy, I issue a Trust Token[A, B] to
> Murphy, where A is that player and B is Murphy, to Murphy.
>
> Then, I do the same, again, but for the beneficiary to be another player
> instead of Murphy (for example, "Once, for each player except Ais523, I
> issue a Trust Token[A, B] to Ais523, where A is that player and B
> is Ais523, to Ais523."), until I have done the sequence for all Players
> (except myself, because I can't issue myself Trust Tokens).
>
> I CFJ: "All Players except Cuddlebeam now have enough Trust Tokens to win
> the game."
>
> I then informally plead for anyone to send me Trust Tokens via this
> technique as well, so that I can claim victory too.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

Also, before I forget, this is "Message A", in SHA256:
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On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Sent.
>
> ...Now I brace myself.
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would appreciate receiving the originals of both of these documents, if
>> you do not mind.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:01 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm piggybacking on Kerim's arguments/reasoning because I'd like to
>> know if encryption (and eventually public asymmetric information in
>> general, really) can be applied to Gratuitous Arguments (only the Judge
>> needs them, yes? Just like the translation of the hash, which is also
>> "evidence" for the case), and I feel their lawyering for this case would in
>> most cases be better than mine, so I'm copying it.
>> >
>> > I present the following as gratuitous arguments to that CFJ.
>> >
>> > 1) 585b7880ef0394acb586274ba623ecd0232fbdc2
>> >   1.1) The above is a 16-character string, in a SHA-1 hash
>> >   1.2) At the option of the judge, I will send them em a document
>> (hereafter "Cuddle's Original") which is the decoded version of the
>> argument stated in 1), which plainly and clearly specifies a
>> counterargument. (I'll leave it up to the judge whether to publish it).
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > > My disagreement with o here is that I don't believe that G. has
>> pledged
>> > > to perform any /specific/ action; e's simply pledged to perform /some/
>> > > action that meets the given description. If a player hypothetically
>> > > pledged to transfer 5 shinies to "some player", we'd accept that as a
>> > > valid pledge even though there's no way to determine which player
>> would
>> > > gain the shinies until it happens (and indeed, the pledgor may well
>> not
>> > > have made eir mind up at the point e makes the pledge). In this
>> > > particular situation, it's probable that G. had some specific document
>> > > in mind, but the pledge would work equally well even if e didn't.
>> >
>> > Gratuitous:
>> >
>> > 1.  At the option of the judge, I will send em a document (hereafter
>> "the
>> > Original") that meets the description in my pledge, which plainly and
>> > clearly specifies that I was required to perform a regulated Agoran
>> action.
>> > (I'll leave it up to the judge whether to publish it).
>> >
>> > 2.  I thought about saying that I would pledge to obey *every* document
>> > meeting that description (narrowing that possible window at least a bit
>> > was why I specified character length).  In the end I didn't.
>> >
>> > If I had, most such documents would be nonsense and IRRELEVANT.  If I
>> > broke the Original, that would be enough to "convict" me, so any others
>> > wouldn't matter.  If I obeyed the Original, there would still be some
>> very
>> > low but nonzero chance (unknowable to me or anyone else) that I was
>> still
>> > guilty, if some other document existed that is an intelligible
>> proscription
>> > with the same hash and length.  But I'd argue that the odds are so low
>> > that it is below any standard of evidence to assume its existence.
>> >
>> > If the judge wants to consider whether simple permutations of the
>> > grammar (like the use of "every") would make this general idea work
>> > that would be great.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

Sent.

...Now I brace myself.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I would appreciate receiving the originals of both of these documents, if
> you do not mind.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:01 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > I'm piggybacking on Kerim's arguments/reasoning because I'd like to know
> if encryption (and eventually public asymmetric information in general,
> really) can be applied to Gratuitous Arguments (only the Judge needs them,
> yes? Just like the translation of the hash, which is also "evidence" for
> the case), and I feel their lawyering for this case would in most cases be
> better than mine, so I'm copying it.
> >
> > I present the following as gratuitous arguments to that CFJ.
> >
> > 1) 585b7880ef0394acb586274ba623ecd0232fbdc2
> >   1.1) The above is a 16-character string, in a SHA-1 hash
> >   1.2) At the option of the judge, I will send them em a document
> (hereafter "Cuddle's Original") which is the decoded version of the
> argument stated in 1), which plainly and clearly specifies a
> counterargument. (I'll leave it up to the judge whether to publish it).
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > My disagreement with o here is that I don't believe that G. has pledged
> > > to perform any /specific/ action; e's simply pledged to perform /some/
> > > action that meets the given description. If a player hypothetically
> > > pledged to transfer 5 shinies to "some player", we'd accept that as a
> > > valid pledge even though there's no way to determine which player would
> > > gain the shinies until it happens (and indeed, the pledgor may well not
> > > have made eir mind up at the point e makes the pledge). In this
> > > particular situation, it's probable that G. had some specific document
> > > in mind, but the pledge would work equally well even if e didn't.
> >
> > Gratuitous:
> >
> > 1.  At the option of the judge, I will send em a document (hereafter "the
> > Original") that meets the description in my pledge, which plainly and
> > clearly specifies that I was required to perform a regulated Agoran
> action.
> > (I'll leave it up to the judge whether to publish it).
> >
> > 2.  I thought about saying that I would pledge to obey *every* document
> > meeting that description (narrowing that possible window at least a bit
> > was why I specified character length).  In the end I didn't.
> >
> > If I had, most such documents would be nonsense and IRRELEVANT.  If I
> > broke the Original, that would be enough to "convict" me, so any others
> > wouldn't matter.  If I obeyed the Original, there would still be some
> very
> > low but nonzero chance (unknowable to me or anyone else) that I was still
> > guilty, if some other document existed that is an intelligible
> proscription
> > with the same hash and length.  But I'd argue that the odds are so low
> > that it is below any standard of evidence to assume its existence.
> >
> > If the judge wants to consider whether simple permutations of the
> > grammar (like the use of "every") would make this general idea work
> > that would be great.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I would appreciate receiving the originals of both of these documents, if you 
do not mind.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:01 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> I'm piggybacking on Kerim's arguments/reasoning because I'd like to know if 
> encryption (and eventually public asymmetric information in general, really) 
> can be applied to Gratuitous Arguments (only the Judge needs them, yes? Just 
> like the translation of the hash, which is also "evidence" for the case), and 
> I feel their lawyering for this case would in most cases be better than mine, 
> so I'm copying it.
> 
> I present the following as gratuitous arguments to that CFJ.
> 
> 1) 585b7880ef0394acb586274ba623ecd0232fbdc2
>   1.1) The above is a 16-character string, in a SHA-1 hash
>   1.2) At the option of the judge, I will send them em a document (hereafter 
> "Cuddle's Original") which is the decoded version of the argument stated in 
> 1), which plainly and clearly specifies a counterargument. (I'll leave it up 
> to the judge whether to publish it).
> 
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > My disagreement with o here is that I don't believe that G. has pledged
> > to perform any /specific/ action; e's simply pledged to perform /some/
> > action that meets the given description. If a player hypothetically
> > pledged to transfer 5 shinies to "some player", we'd accept that as a
> > valid pledge even though there's no way to determine which player would
> > gain the shinies until it happens (and indeed, the pledgor may well not
> > have made eir mind up at the point e makes the pledge). In this
> > particular situation, it's probable that G. had some specific document
> > in mind, but the pledge would work equally well even if e didn't.
> 
> Gratuitous:
> 
> 1.  At the option of the judge, I will send em a document (hereafter "the
> Original") that meets the description in my pledge, which plainly and
> clearly specifies that I was required to perform a regulated Agoran action.
> (I'll leave it up to the judge whether to publish it).
> 
> 2.  I thought about saying that I would pledge to obey *every* document
> meeting that description (narrowing that possible window at least a bit
> was why I specified character length).  In the end I didn't.
> 
> If I had, most such documents would be nonsense and IRRELEVANT.  If I
> broke the Original, that would be enough to "convict" me, so any others
> wouldn't matter.  If I obeyed the Original, there would still be some very
> low but nonzero chance (unknowable to me or anyone else) that I was still
> guilty, if some other document existed that is an intelligible proscription
> with the same hash and length.  But I'd argue that the odds are so low
> that it is below any standard of evidence to assume its existence.
> 
> If the judge wants to consider whether simple permutations of the
> grammar (like the use of "every") would make this general idea work
> that would be great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

Keeping the spirit of what Kerim intended, what if they used some bijective
function instead?

Perhaps use multiple ways of writing the same promise in regular language,
hash all of those in different ways, and then claim to promise what all of
those hashes have in common (there must be a better way but this works as
an example) . Or even, if our testimony is just sufficient (as it is for
most cases I feel. I believe that posting "I am happy" is often good enough
CFJ material to confirm that I am happy.) just promise "I promise to act
according to what I've privately communicated to Bob in the email I sent
them at the 31st of February of 2019 at 12:00 UTC titled "Pledge". Then
send a copy of that email when needed in Agora court.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 21:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > If I had, most such documents would be nonsense and IRRELEVANT.  If
> > I broke the Original, that would be enough to "convict" me, so any others
> > wouldn't matter.  If I obeyed the Original, there would still be some
> very
> > low but nonzero chance (unknowable to me or anyone else) that I was still
> > guilty, if some other document existed that is an intelligible
> proscription
> > with the same hash and length.  But I'd argue that the odds are so low
> > that it is below any standard of evidence to assume its existence.
>
> Imagine documents of the form "post the string '…'", where the "…" is a
> string 64 characters long. If we assume a 256-character character set
> (which is kind-of implied by the way that SHA-1 is defined), then we
> have (2 to the power of 64×8) = (2 to the power of 512) possible
> documents meeting this description. (Some will be ambiguous due to
> mismatched quotes or the like, but the vast majority will unambiguously
> describe an action you're capable of taking.) On the other hand, there
> are 2 to the power of 160 possible SHA-1 hashes. As a result, we can
> estimate that there are likely around 2 to the power of 352 documents
> of this form that match the description in your pledge (together with,
> most likely, a much larger number of documents of other forms).
>
> The chance that you were still guilty in this hypothetical (where you
> agree to act according to every such document, rather than any such
> document) wouldn't be very low and nonzero; it would be so close to 1
> that I'd feel confident finding you guilty as a judge or referee. The
> only plausible way in which you wouldn't be would be if there was some
> sort of mathematical flaw in SHA-1 that caused some hashes to be much
> less likely than others, and if your intended document somehow happened
> to hit this case.
>
> --
> ais523
>

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 21:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If I had, most such documents would be nonsense and IRRELEVANT.  If
> I broke the Original, that would be enough to "convict" me, so any others
> wouldn't matter.  If I obeyed the Original, there would still be some very
> low but nonzero chance (unknowable to me or anyone else) that I was still
> guilty, if some other document existed that is an intelligible proscription
> with the same hash and length.  But I'd argue that the odds are so low
> that it is below any standard of evidence to assume its existence.

Imagine documents of the form "post the string '…'", where the "…" is a
string 64 characters long. If we assume a 256-character character set
(which is kind-of implied by the way that SHA-1 is defined), then we
have (2 to the power of 64×8) = (2 to the power of 512) possible
documents meeting this description. (Some will be ambiguous due to
mismatched quotes or the like, but the vast majority will unambiguously
describe an action you're capable of taking.) On the other hand, there
are 2 to the power of 160 possible SHA-1 hashes. As a result, we can
estimate that there are likely around 2 to the power of 352 documents
of this form that match the description in your pledge (together with,
most likely, a much larger number of documents of other forms).

The chance that you were still guilty in this hypothetical (where you
agree to act according to every such document, rather than any such
document) wouldn't be very low and nonzero; it would be so close to 1
that I'd feel confident finding you guilty as a judge or referee. The
only plausible way in which you wouldn't be would be if there was some
sort of mathematical flaw in SHA-1 that caused some hashes to be much
less likely than others, and if your intended document somehow happened
to hit this case.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[V.J Rada]

"or where an appeals court would make a finding of law _before_ a sentence
has been handed down by a trial court."

Federal courts sometimes ask State courts what the hell is going on in
state law before making their decision.

However, yeah.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> * in front of that 'Judge'
>
> I'm writing horribly today lol, sorry. I used 'case' a bunch of times in
> that last sentence too, jesus.
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
>> Maybe it's like that the CFJ is the CSI and the Referee is the
>> traditional Judge that then takes the CSI's information to give verdict.
>>
>> CFJs also give word on interpretation though, and gratuitous
>> argument/counterarguments is very similar to lawyers in court in from of
>> that 'Judge'.
>>
>> It's also possible to CFJ "Is this cardable?" though, in which case the
>> CFJ Judge can act as a Referee and the real Referee just becomes a peon in
>> that case.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > On Jul 20, 2017, at 12:06 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> >> My disagreement with o here is that I don't believe that G. has
>>> pledged
>>> >> to perform any /specific/ action; e's simply pledged to perform /some/
>>> >> action that meets the given description. If a player hypothetically
>>> >> pledged to transfer 5 shinies to "some player", we'd accept that as a
>>> >> valid pledge even though there's no way to determine which player
>>> would
>>> >> gain the shinies until it happens (and indeed, the pledgor may well
>>> not
>>> >> have made eir mind up at the point e makes the pledge). In this
>>> >> particular situation, it's probable that G. had some specific document
>>> >> in mind, but the pledge would work equally well even if e didn't.
>>> >
>>> > Gratuitous:
>>> >
>>> > 1.  At the option of the judge, I will send em a document (hereafter
>>> "the
>>> > Original") that meets the description in my pledge, which plainly and
>>> > clearly specifies that I was required to perform a regulated Agoran
>>> action.
>>> > (I'll leave it up to the judge whether to publish it).
>>> >
>>> > 2.  I thought about saying that I would pledge to obey *every* document
>>> > meeting that description (narrowing that possible window at least a bit
>>> > was why I specified character length).  In the end I didn't.
>>> >
>>> > If I had, most such documents would be nonsense and IRRELEVANT.  If I
>>> > broke the Original, that would be enough to "convict" me, so any others
>>> > wouldn't matter.  If I obeyed the Original, there would still be some
>>> very
>>> > low but nonzero chance (unknowable to me or anyone else) that I was
>>> still
>>> > guilty, if some other document existed that is an intelligible
>>> proscription
>>> > with the same hash and length.  But I'd argue that the odds are so low
>>> > that it is below any standard of evidence to assume its existence.
>>> >
>>> > If the judge wants to consider whether simple permutations of the
>>> > grammar (like the use of "every") would make this general idea work
>>> > that would be great.
>>>
>>> We have here an extremely unusual relationship between the CFJ system
>>> and the Referee system. In this case, the CFJ system can find fact - but
>>> cannot impose punishment, while the Referee system can impose punishment,
>>> but cannot find fact. To my knowledge, there are no similarly bicameral
>>> judiciaries anywhere else.
>>>
>>> There are, certainly, plenty of appeals courts - and up until now, the
>>> CFJ system has served, at least in my mind, as the court of appeals for
>>> Referee decisions. There are certainly plenty of trial courts, and both the
>>> CFJ system (which can establish precedent) and the Referee system (which
>>> can’t) somewhat fit that niche. However, I can’t think of anywhere where a
>>> trial court might defer to another trial court for sentencing, or where an
>>> appeals court would make a finding of law _before_ a sentence has been
>>> handed down by a trial court.
>>>
>>> This is fascinating. Thank you.
>>>
>>> -o
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

* in front of that 'Judge'

I'm writing horribly today lol, sorry. I used 'case' a bunch of times in
that last sentence too, jesus.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Maybe it's like that the CFJ is the CSI and the Referee is the traditional
> Judge that then takes the CSI's information to give verdict.
>
> CFJs also give word on interpretation though, and gratuitous
> argument/counterarguments is very similar to lawyers in court in from of
> that 'Judge'.
>
> It's also possible to CFJ "Is this cardable?" though, in which case the
> CFJ Judge can act as a Referee and the real Referee just becomes a peon in
> that case.
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Jul 20, 2017, at 12:06 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> >> My disagreement with o here is that I don't believe that G. has pledged
>> >> to perform any /specific/ action; e's simply pledged to perform /some/
>> >> action that meets the given description. If a player hypothetically
>> >> pledged to transfer 5 shinies to "some player", we'd accept that as a
>> >> valid pledge even though there's no way to determine which player would
>> >> gain the shinies until it happens (and indeed, the pledgor may well not
>> >> have made eir mind up at the point e makes the pledge). In this
>> >> particular situation, it's probable that G. had some specific document
>> >> in mind, but the pledge would work equally well even if e didn't.
>> >
>> > Gratuitous:
>> >
>> > 1.  At the option of the judge, I will send em a document (hereafter
>> "the
>> > Original") that meets the description in my pledge, which plainly and
>> > clearly specifies that I was required to perform a regulated Agoran
>> action.
>> > (I'll leave it up to the judge whether to publish it).
>> >
>> > 2.  I thought about saying that I would pledge to obey *every* document
>> > meeting that description (narrowing that possible window at least a bit
>> > was why I specified character length).  In the end I didn't.
>> >
>> > If I had, most such documents would be nonsense and IRRELEVANT.  If I
>> > broke the Original, that would be enough to "convict" me, so any others
>> > wouldn't matter.  If I obeyed the Original, there would still be some
>> very
>> > low but nonzero chance (unknowable to me or anyone else) that I was
>> still
>> > guilty, if some other document existed that is an intelligible
>> proscription
>> > with the same hash and length.  But I'd argue that the odds are so low
>> > that it is below any standard of evidence to assume its existence.
>> >
>> > If the judge wants to consider whether simple permutations of the
>> > grammar (like the use of "every") would make this general idea work
>> > that would be great.
>>
>> We have here an extremely unusual relationship between the CFJ system and
>> the Referee system. In this case, the CFJ system can find fact - but cannot
>> impose punishment, while the Referee system can impose punishment, but
>> cannot find fact. To my knowledge, there are no similarly bicameral
>> judiciaries anywhere else.
>>
>> There are, certainly, plenty of appeals courts - and up until now, the
>> CFJ system has served, at least in my mind, as the court of appeals for
>> Referee decisions. There are certainly plenty of trial courts, and both the
>> CFJ system (which can establish precedent) and the Referee system (which
>> can’t) somewhat fit that niche. However, I can’t think of anywhere where a
>> trial court might defer to another trial court for sentencing, or where an
>> appeals court would make a finding of law _before_ a sentence has been
>> handed down by a trial court.
>>
>> This is fascinating. Thank you.
>>
>> -o
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

Maybe it's like that the CFJ is the CSI and the Referee is the traditional
Judge that then takes the CSI's information to give verdict.

CFJs also give word on interpretation though, and gratuitous
argument/counterarguments is very similar to lawyers in court in from of
that 'Judge'.

It's also possible to CFJ "Is this cardable?" though, in which case the CFJ
Judge can act as a Referee and the real Referee just becomes a peon in that
case.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Jul 20, 2017, at 12:06 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> My disagreement with o here is that I don't believe that G. has pledged
> >> to perform any /specific/ action; e's simply pledged to perform /some/
> >> action that meets the given description. If a player hypothetically
> >> pledged to transfer 5 shinies to "some player", we'd accept that as a
> >> valid pledge even though there's no way to determine which player would
> >> gain the shinies until it happens (and indeed, the pledgor may well not
> >> have made eir mind up at the point e makes the pledge). In this
> >> particular situation, it's probable that G. had some specific document
> >> in mind, but the pledge would work equally well even if e didn't.
> >
> > Gratuitous:
> >
> > 1.  At the option of the judge, I will send em a document (hereafter "the
> > Original") that meets the description in my pledge, which plainly and
> > clearly specifies that I was required to perform a regulated Agoran
> action.
> > (I'll leave it up to the judge whether to publish it).
> >
> > 2.  I thought about saying that I would pledge to obey *every* document
> > meeting that description (narrowing that possible window at least a bit
> > was why I specified character length).  In the end I didn't.
> >
> > If I had, most such documents would be nonsense and IRRELEVANT.  If I
> > broke the Original, that would be enough to "convict" me, so any others
> > wouldn't matter.  If I obeyed the Original, there would still be some
> very
> > low but nonzero chance (unknowable to me or anyone else) that I was still
> > guilty, if some other document existed that is an intelligible
> proscription
> > with the same hash and length.  But I'd argue that the odds are so low
> > that it is below any standard of evidence to assume its existence.
> >
> > If the judge wants to consider whether simple permutations of the
> > grammar (like the use of "every") would make this general idea work
> > that would be great.
>
> We have here an extremely unusual relationship between the CFJ system and
> the Referee system. In this case, the CFJ system can find fact - but cannot
> impose punishment, while the Referee system can impose punishment, but
> cannot find fact. To my knowledge, there are no similarly bicameral
> judiciaries anywhere else.
>
> There are, certainly, plenty of appeals courts - and up until now, the CFJ
> system has served, at least in my mind, as the court of appeals for Referee
> decisions. There are certainly plenty of trial courts, and both the CFJ
> system (which can establish precedent) and the Referee system (which can’t)
> somewhat fit that niche. However, I can’t think of anywhere where a trial
> court might defer to another trial court for sentencing, or where an
> appeals court would make a finding of law _before_ a sentence has been
> handed down by a trial court.
>
> This is fascinating. Thank you.
>
> -o
>
>