Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ais523 can't return the point, so an equitable resolution would be to > award each other party 1 free point as well. ;-) No. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> I agree that criminal proceedings aren't reasonable, I'm more thinking of >> the equity; what is an "equitable" solution to making a mistake that >> resets all other members' points? > > ps. Maybe equity would be me putting a big word ILLEGAL next to the win in > the herald's report ;). What's the point? It would have been a valid win if e had known about the issue (e just would have had to pay more).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:24 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > As is, I don't think there's a lot that can be done. The PRS was acting > > not-in-accordance-with-expectations due to a mistake, so that can be > > solved equitably, but the gamestate will have changed a lot in the > > meantime. Technically speaking, BobTHJ's award of the second point to me > > was ILLEGAL (although it worked), but a court case on that would have to > > be UNAWARE, as at the time we both believed it worked. > > I agree that criminal proceedings aren't reasonable, I'm more thinking of > the equity; what is an "equitable" solution to making a mistake that > resets all other members' points? I'm not too bothered with "gamestate > changing" issues, equity is more interesting when you're finding recompense > for things that "can't be put exactly back." In other words, is there > more equity in the "worth" of the single point (one point) or the relative > worth (the value of that point in how it changed all holdings and awarded > a win). -goethe I just love the irony of that happening on the 100th point... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On 27 Oct 2008, at 21:24, Kerim Aydin wrote: I agree that criminal proceedings aren't reasonable, I'm more thinking of the equity; what is an "equitable" solution to making a mistake that resets all other members' points? I'm not too bothered with "gamestate changing" issues, equity is more interesting when you're finding recompense for things that "can't be put exactly back." In other words, is there more equity in the "worth" of the single point (one point) or the relative worth (the value of that point in how it changed all holdings and awarded a win). -goethe Giving back a point = taking away a points voucher, I'd say. Or to be more general (i.e. have more impact), take away enough coins for 1 PV. -- ehird
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I agree that criminal proceedings aren't reasonable, I'm more thinking of > the equity; what is an "equitable" solution to making a mistake that > resets all other members' points? ps. Maybe equity would be me putting a big word ILLEGAL next to the win in the herald's report ;).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > As is, I don't think there's a lot that can be done. The PRS was acting > not-in-accordance-with-expectations due to a mistake, so that can be > solved equitably, but the gamestate will have changed a lot in the > meantime. Technically speaking, BobTHJ's award of the second point to me > was ILLEGAL (although it worked), but a court case on that would have to > be UNAWARE, as at the time we both believed it worked. I agree that criminal proceedings aren't reasonable, I'm more thinking of the equity; what is an "equitable" solution to making a mistake that resets all other members' points? I'm not too bothered with "gamestate changing" issues, equity is more interesting when you're finding recompense for things that "can't be put exactly back." In other words, is there more equity in the "worth" of the single point (one point) or the relative worth (the value of that point in how it changed all holdings and awarded a win). -goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves > >> to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least 100. > >> > >> Therefore, by rule 2187, I satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score; > >> I do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, therefore I win. > > > > Per the Scorekeepor's office, this is an effective win (even though > > the 100'th point was gained due to my error as PRS contestmaster). > > This is a case where a contest has done sufficient damage to outside > parties (e.g. everyone with points would would reset to 0) to warrant > action. Recommendations? -Goethe > It could have been fixed easily at the time if it had been noticed, and would still have reset everyone's points to 20% of their original value (we just changed the Score Index), with a slight difference in the PBA's asset holdings. I suppose this is one of the effects of pragmatic point awarding... As is, I don't think there's a lot that can be done. The PRS was acting not-in-accordance-with-expectations due to a mistake, so that can be solved equitably, but the gamestate will have changed a lot in the meantime. Technically speaking, BobTHJ's award of the second point to me was ILLEGAL (although it worked), but a court case on that would have to be UNAWARE, as at the time we both believed it worked. -- ais523 who just won due to a mistake, it seems
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 15:07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves >>> to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least 100. >>> >>> Therefore, by rule 2187, I satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score; >>> I do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, therefore I win. >> >> Per the Scorekeepor's office, this is an effective win (even though >> the 100'th point was gained due to my error as PRS contestmaster). > > This is a case where a contest has done sufficient damage to outside > parties (e.g. everyone with points would would reset to 0) to warrant > action. Recommendations? -Goethe > no drastic action needed, in my opinion. If I would have caught the error ais523 could have still gotten the last PV needed and still easily won. The end result would have been the same. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves >> to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least 100. >> >> Therefore, by rule 2187, I satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score; >> I do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, therefore I win. > > Per the Scorekeepor's office, this is an effective win (even though > the 100'th point was gained due to my error as PRS contestmaster). This is a case where a contest has done sufficient damage to outside parties (e.g. everyone with points would would reset to 0) to warrant action. Recommendations? -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves > to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least 100. > > Therefore, by rule 2187, I satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score; > I do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, therefore I win. Per the Scorekeepor's office, this is an effective win (even though the 100'th point was gained due to my error as PRS contestmaster). BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I initiate an equity case regarding the PRS, whose parties are ehird, > BobTHJ, comex, Murphy, Quazie, Wooble, Pavitra, ais523, and root. > ais523 should only have gotten 1 point from the above cashout since e > only had 1 PV. He attempted to withdraw a second PV from the PBA, but > this transaction failed (something which I only now discovered). ais523 can't return the point, so an equitable resolution would be to award each other party 1 free point as well. ;-) -root
DIS: Re: BUS: PRS Cashout
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > The following sentence is a win announcement, and this sentence serves > to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score of at least 100. > > Therefore, by rule 2187, I satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score; > I do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, therefore I win. > -- > ais523 Pretty straightforward-seeming, though I'll wait 24-48 hours as Herald for Scorekeepor confirmation or in case there's discussion to be had. -G.
