Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: > On 2017-11-28 13:05, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: > > > Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by a > > > contract when it's destroyed? > > "If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by Agora." > > > > > > > And if Agora can't own a given type of asset? (Or does this supersede those > provisions?) There's a specific exception for Agora owning things it "can't" own: Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by Agora. If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside that class (except if it is owned by Agora, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection). The restrictions in the previous sentence are subject to modification by its backing document.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 21:24 Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:07 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > > > I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after > > a Black Card is awarded to em, provided that eir most recent > deregistration > > took place with eir consent. > > I’ll note that this was ineffective, as you did not own a shiny at that > time. > > -o > > I rest my case, no pun intended.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
> On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:07 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after > a Black Card is awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration > took place with eir consent. I’ll note that this was ineffective, as you did not own a shiny at that time. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
What if the asset could not be owned by Agora? On 11/27/2017 09:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: >> Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by a >> contract when it's destroyed? > "If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by Agora." > > > -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On 2017-11-28 13:05, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by a contract when it's destroyed? "If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by Agora." And if Agora can't own a given type of asset? (Or does this supersede those provisions?)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: > Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by a > contract when it's destroyed? "If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by Agora."
DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by a contract when it's destroyed? On 2017-11-28 12:56, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Nov 22, 2017, at 6:50 PM, VJ Rada wrote: I pay one shiny to create the following contract (destroying 10 bills and trading w/ ACU) TITLE: WHATEVER TEXT: THIS CONTRACT HOLDS RADA's Assets i transfer 3,000 justice favours to this contract If this contract still exists, I intend, with Agoran Consent, to destroy it. It has served its purpose, and in any case, appears not to function. -o
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit). Can't remember what the limit was or if it's still on. omd confirmed in ##nomic that this happened, and there were two messages by V.J.Rada caught by the limit. As revealed there, the limit (at least for -business) is 500 KB. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
NttPF Greetings, Ørjan. On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:45 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and the serial comma is only required in lists, right? -Aris Probably. I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after a Black Card is awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration took place with eir consent.} -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: I've actually been meaning to ask you this for a while Ørjan, and now seems like a decent time to do so (i don't mean to be rude or w/e obv). What's the story behind your watching of Agora? Because it seems like you were around in like 1993 and have been watching quite actively for several years? I actually don't know the story behind that. I stopped following Agora some time early last decade. (I was without a computer at about the same time I started getting RSI symptoms, so took a long break.) Later, I got onto the #esoteric@freenode IRC channel, which had several Agorans as well. In 2013 Agora had the big 20 year anniversary, which some of them told me about, and I was tempted into reenabling my list email (I had never technically unsubscribed). And I've been around since. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
But what if it would? On 11/22/2017 7:08 PM, VJ Rada wrote: You know I actually have a completely legal way that may well work and be able to get infinite favours. It would be unethical to do it (I promised Cuddlebeam to keep it secret) but wouldn't it be funny if I did it? (The answer to that question is no, rada. it wouldn't) On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Madeline wrote: Pledges aren't a currency and I doubt anyone would support a fine like that. On 2017-11-23 11:02, VJ Rada wrote: The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny and 3,000 favours? On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline wrote: And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you did so yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies! On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote: Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate shinies-only penalties. "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed" This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately. -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can only have a penalty imposed in shinies. Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar Telnaior. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn wrote: I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now interim. On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or similar) I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on. -o -- From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Remember the way I tried to pay for the Estate? Given that economic favours are 1 shiny right now, o. could generate as many favours as e wanted if e got rid of eir shinies (e would be the earliest player to register w/ 0 shinies). E could, of course, do that for other people via contract if e got the other 0-shiny people out of the way. Way that I promised CB to keep secret is obvious, but still secret. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Trying to get infinite stuff has a good history if it's legal go for it, > there's several rulings that may stop that kind of thing but you > never know. > > The shinies system was broken in subtle ways, but some big > systems have big loopholes from the start we just shrug and reset, > better now then after we've invested time in it - I did something like > that at least once. > > On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >> You know I actually have a completely legal way that may well work and >> be able to get infinite favours. >> >> It would be unethical to do it (I promised Cuddlebeam to keep it >> secret) but wouldn't it be funny if I did it? >> >> (The answer to that question is no, rada. it wouldn't) >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Madeline wrote: >> > Pledges aren't a currency and I doubt anyone would support a fine like >> > that. >> > >> > >> > >> > On 2017-11-23 11:02, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> >> >> The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to >> >> fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny >> >> and 3,000 favours? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline wrote: >> >>> >> >>> And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you did >> >>> so >> >>> yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies! >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in >> the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater >> of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the >> infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an >> amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be >> incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best >> interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate >> shinies-only penalties. >> >> "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution >> of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed" >> This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is >> "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >> > >> > I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately. >> > >> > -Aris >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> >> >> Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not >> >> effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can >> >> only have a penalty imposed in shinies. >> >> >> >> Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar >> >> Telnaior. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson >> >> wrote: >> >> On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn >> wrote: >> >> I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now >> interim. >> >> On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: >> > >> > I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing >> > 3,000 >> > fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with >> > agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or >> > similar) >> >>> >> >>> I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on. >> >>> >> >>> -o >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> From V.J. Rada >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Trying to get infinite stuff has a good history if it's legal go for it, there's several rulings that may stop that kind of thing but you never know. The shinies system was broken in subtle ways, but some big systems have big loopholes from the start we just shrug and reset, better now then after we've invested time in it - I did something like that at least once. On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > You know I actually have a completely legal way that may well work and > be able to get infinite favours. > > It would be unethical to do it (I promised Cuddlebeam to keep it > secret) but wouldn't it be funny if I did it? > > (The answer to that question is no, rada. it wouldn't) > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Madeline wrote: > > Pledges aren't a currency and I doubt anyone would support a fine like that. > > > > > > > > On 2017-11-23 11:02, VJ Rada wrote: > >> > >> The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to > >> fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny > >> and 3,000 favours? > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline wrote: > >>> > >>> And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you did > >>> so > >>> yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies! > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote: > > Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in > the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater > of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the > infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an > amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be > incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best > interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate > shinies-only penalties. > > "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution > of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed" > This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is > "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not. > > > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > > I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > >> > >> Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not > >> effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can > >> only have a penalty imposed in shinies. > >> > >> Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar > >> Telnaior. > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson > >> wrote: > > On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn > wrote: > > I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now > interim. > > On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > > > I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing > > 3,000 > > fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with > > agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or > > similar) > >>> > >>> I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on. > >>> > >>> -o > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> From V.J. Rada > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
You know I actually have a completely legal way that may well work and be able to get infinite favours. It would be unethical to do it (I promised Cuddlebeam to keep it secret) but wouldn't it be funny if I did it? (The answer to that question is no, rada. it wouldn't) On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Madeline wrote: > Pledges aren't a currency and I doubt anyone would support a fine like that. > > > > On 2017-11-23 11:02, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to >> fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny >> and 3,000 favours? >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline wrote: >>> >>> And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you did >>> so >>> yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies! >>> >>> >>> On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote: Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate shinies-only penalties. "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed" This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not >> effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can >> only have a penalty imposed in shinies. >> >> Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar >> Telnaior. >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson >> wrote: On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn wrote: I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now interim. On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing > 3,000 > fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with > agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or > similar) >>> >>> I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on. >>> >>> -o >>> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
One is to just say that it is poor drafting and therefore as soon as the currencies do not match, we do not know what is within the set and therefore only the bounds are known and valid. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Nov 22, 2017, at 7:03 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I'll put a solution to that in my ruling. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:02 PM VJ Rada wrote: > >> The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to >> fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny >> and 3,000 favours? >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline wrote: >>> And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you >> did so >>> yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies! >>> >>> >>> On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote: Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate shinies-only penalties. "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed" This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not >> effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can >> only have a penalty imposed in shinies. >> >> Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar >> Telnaior. >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson >> wrote: On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn >> wrote: I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now interim. On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing >> 3,000 > fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with > agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or > similar) >>> >>> I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on. >>> >>> -o >>> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Pledges aren't a currency and I doubt anyone would support a fine like that. On 2017-11-23 11:02, VJ Rada wrote: The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny and 3,000 favours? On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline wrote: And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you did so yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies! On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote: Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate shinies-only penalties. "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed" This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately. -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can only have a penalty imposed in shinies. Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar Telnaior. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn wrote: I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now interim. On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or similar) I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on. -o -- From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
I'll put a solution to that in my ruling. -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:02 PM VJ Rada wrote: > The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to > fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny > and 3,000 favours? > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline wrote: > > And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you > did so > > yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies! > > > > > > On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote: > >> > >> Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in > >> the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater > >> of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the > >> infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an > >> amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be > >> incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best > >> interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate > >> shinies-only penalties. > >> > >> "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution > >> of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed" > >> This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is > >> "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately. > >>> > >>> -Aris > >>> > >>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not > effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can > only have a penalty imposed in shinies. > > Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar > Telnaior. > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson > wrote: > >> > >> On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn > wrote: > >> > >> I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now > >> interim. > >> > >> On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > >>> > >>> I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing > 3,000 > >>> fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with > >>> agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or > >>> similar) > > > > I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on. > > > > -o > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
We need to create a 2d graph with amounts as an x and currency as the y to help in this assessment. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Nov 22, 2017, at 7:02 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to > fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny > and 3,000 favours? > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline wrote: >> And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you did so >> yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies! >> >> >> On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote: >>> >>> Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in >>> the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater >>> of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the >>> infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an >>> amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be >>> incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best >>> interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate >>> shinies-only penalties. >>> >>> "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution >>> of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed" >>> This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is >>> "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant >>> wrote: I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately. -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not > effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can > only have a penalty imposed in shinies. > > Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar > Telnaior. > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson > wrote: >>> >>> On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn wrote: >>> >>> I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now >>> interim. >>> >>> On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or similar) >> >> I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on. >> >> -o >> > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
The rule is pretty broken though tbh. Imagine if Alexis had decided to fine me 2 pledges (which are an asset). Are 2 pledges between 1 shiny and 3,000 favours? On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Madeline wrote: > And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you did so > yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies! > > > On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in >> the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater >> of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the >> infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an >> amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be >> incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best >> interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate >> shinies-only penalties. >> >> "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution >> of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed" >> This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is >> "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >>> >>> I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately. >>> >>> -Aris >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can only have a penalty imposed in shinies. Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar Telnaior. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> >> On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn wrote: >> >> I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now >> interim. >> >> On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: >>> >>> I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 >>> fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with >>> agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or >>> similar) > > I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on. > > -o > -- From V.J. Rada >> >> >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Because it has to go through the Agora mail server. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Nov 22, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Madeline wrote: > > Why does it take me a few minutes to receive messages D: > Whatever, Alexis beat Rada to the punch anyway. > > > On 2017-11-23 10:51, Telnaior wrote: >> With the support of myself and ATMunn, I Levy the Fine. >> I then act on behalf of VJ Rada to transfer the favours according to the >> fine's distribution. >> >> >> On 2017-11-23 10:47, ATMunn wrote: >>> I support. >>> >>> On 11/22/2017 6:45 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 05:47 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > This still works because e CAN do so, but it violated a SHALL NOT. I > point my finger at VJ Rada for distributing favours, when not allowed to > by a rule. > I had missed the Blue Card option, thank you PSS. V.J. Rada is clearly guilty of this. I impose the Cold Hand of Justice on V.J. Rada, imposing a Blue Card for illegally distributing favours to emself. A Blue Card is appropriate in this circumstance because e profited significantly and directly from the violation. Per Rule 2506, I can impose a fine up to the profit of the violation; the profit was 3000 NPR Favours, and so I impose a fine of 3000 NPR Favours. As Favours cannot be transferred to Agora to pay the fine, and every Agoran is aggrieved by this scam, I direct that the favours be distributed evenly among Agorans other than myself (who cannot be a beneficiary of the fine) and V.J. Rada, as follows: 214 each to: Aris o 天火狐 Quazie Cuddle Beam G. ATMunn Trigon Gaelan nichdel 215 each to: G. Telnaior PSS Corona I intend, with two support, to Levy a Fine upon V.J. Rada for the above Blue Card. >> > signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
H. arbitor G., could you assign the blue card CFJ to me ASAP? It would be nice to get some closure on this. -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:59 PM ATMunn wrote: > Wait nevermind, maybe e didn't. > > On 11/22/2017 6:57 PM, ATMunn wrote: > > The transfer failed, as Alexis had already acted on your behalf to pay > the fine. > > > > On 11/22/2017 6:50 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > >> I pay one shiny to create the following contract (destroying 10 bills > >> and trading w/ ACU) > >> TITLE: WHATEVER > >> TEXT: THIS CONTRACT HOLDS RADA's Assets > >> > >> i transfer 3,000 justice favours to this contract > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Aris Merchant > >> wrote: > >>> I do so. > >>> > >>> -Aris > >>> > >>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Telnaior wrote: > I support. > > > > On 2017-11-23 10:45, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 05:47 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> This still works because e CAN do so, but it violated a SHALL NOT. I > >> point my finger at VJ Rada for distributing favours, when not > allowed to > >> by a rule. > >> > > I had missed the Blue Card option, thank you PSS. > > > >V.J. Rada is clearly guilty of this. I impose the Cold Hand of > Justice > > on > > V.J. Rada, imposing a Blue Card for illegally distributing favours to > > emself. A Blue Card is appropriate in this circumstance because e > profited > > significantly and directly from the violation. > > > > Per Rule 2506, I can impose a fine up to the profit of the > violation; the > > profit was 3000 NPR Favours, and so I impose a fine of 3000 NPR > Favours. > > As > > Favours cannot be transferred to Agora to pay the fine, and every > Agoran > > is > > aggrieved by this scam, I direct that the favours be distributed > evenly > > among Agorans other than myself (who cannot be a beneficiary of the > fine) > > and V.J. Rada, as follows: > > > > 214 each to: > > Aris > > o > > 天火狐 > > Quazie > > Cuddle Beam > > G. > > ATMunn > > Trigon > > Gaelan > > nichdel > > > > 215 each to: > > G. > > Telnaior > > PSS > > Corona > > > > I intend, with two support, to Levy a Fine upon V.J. Rada for the > above > > Blue Card. > > > > >> > >> > >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
And it's not even REMOTELY impossible to tell the relative value, you did so yourself earlier to say 3000 favours was more than 25 shinies! On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote: Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate shinies-only penalties. "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed" This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately. -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can only have a penalty imposed in shinies. Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar Telnaior. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn wrote: I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now interim. On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or similar) I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on. -o -- From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 18:58 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I support. But, Corona deserves more credit, the way I read it we would > have had to bend the rules because I missed the next blatant clause. > Fair point; thanks Corona!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Wait nevermind, maybe e didn't. On 11/22/2017 6:57 PM, ATMunn wrote: The transfer failed, as Alexis had already acted on your behalf to pay the fine. On 11/22/2017 6:50 PM, VJ Rada wrote: I pay one shiny to create the following contract (destroying 10 bills and trading w/ ACU) TITLE: WHATEVER TEXT: THIS CONTRACT HOLDS RADA's Assets i transfer 3,000 justice favours to this contract On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: I do so. -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Telnaior wrote: I support. On 2017-11-23 10:45, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 05:47 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: This still works because e CAN do so, but it violated a SHALL NOT. I point my finger at VJ Rada for distributing favours, when not allowed to by a rule. I had missed the Blue Card option, thank you PSS. V.J. Rada is clearly guilty of this. I impose the Cold Hand of Justice on V.J. Rada, imposing a Blue Card for illegally distributing favours to emself. A Blue Card is appropriate in this circumstance because e profited significantly and directly from the violation. Per Rule 2506, I can impose a fine up to the profit of the violation; the profit was 3000 NPR Favours, and so I impose a fine of 3000 NPR Favours. As Favours cannot be transferred to Agora to pay the fine, and every Agoran is aggrieved by this scam, I direct that the favours be distributed evenly among Agorans other than myself (who cannot be a beneficiary of the fine) and V.J. Rada, as follows: 214 each to: Aris o 天火狐 Quazie Cuddle Beam G. ATMunn Trigon Gaelan nichdel 215 each to: G. Telnaior PSS Corona I intend, with two support, to Levy a Fine upon V.J. Rada for the above Blue Card.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Huh, that is weird but fair enough! On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Madeline wrote: > SORE WA CHIGAU YO > "For each Party, there is a currency called Favours in that Party." > > > > On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in >> the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater >> of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the >> infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an >> amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be >> incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best >> interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate >> shinies-only penalties. >> >> "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution >> of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed" >> This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is >> "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >>> >>> I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately. >>> >>> -Aris >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can only have a penalty imposed in shinies. Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar Telnaior. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> >> On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn wrote: >> >> I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now >> interim. >> >> On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: >>> >>> I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 >>> fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with >>> agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or >>> similar) > > I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on. > > -o > -- From V.J. Rada >> >> >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 18:57 ATMunn wrote: > The transfer failed, as Alexis had already acted on your behalf to pay the > fine. > Assuming the Blue Card worked at all, yes.
DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
The transfer failed, as Alexis had already acted on your behalf to pay the fine. On 11/22/2017 6:50 PM, VJ Rada wrote: I pay one shiny to create the following contract (destroying 10 bills and trading w/ ACU) TITLE: WHATEVER TEXT: THIS CONTRACT HOLDS RADA's Assets i transfer 3,000 justice favours to this contract On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: I do so. -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Telnaior wrote: I support. On 2017-11-23 10:45, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 05:47 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: This still works because e CAN do so, but it violated a SHALL NOT. I point my finger at VJ Rada for distributing favours, when not allowed to by a rule. I had missed the Blue Card option, thank you PSS. V.J. Rada is clearly guilty of this. I impose the Cold Hand of Justice on V.J. Rada, imposing a Blue Card for illegally distributing favours to emself. A Blue Card is appropriate in this circumstance because e profited significantly and directly from the violation. Per Rule 2506, I can impose a fine up to the profit of the violation; the profit was 3000 NPR Favours, and so I impose a fine of 3000 NPR Favours. As Favours cannot be transferred to Agora to pay the fine, and every Agoran is aggrieved by this scam, I direct that the favours be distributed evenly among Agorans other than myself (who cannot be a beneficiary of the fine) and V.J. Rada, as follows: 214 each to: Aris o 天火狐 Quazie Cuddle Beam G. ATMunn Trigon Gaelan nichdel 215 each to: G. Telnaior PSS Corona I intend, with two support, to Levy a Fine upon V.J. Rada for the above Blue Card.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
SORE WA CHIGAU YO "For each Party, there is a currency called Favours in that Party." On 2017-11-23 10:54, VJ Rada wrote: Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate shinies-only penalties. "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed" This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately. -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can only have a penalty imposed in shinies. Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar Telnaior. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn wrote: I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now interim. On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or similar) I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on. -o -- From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Arguments: Blue Cards states "The person issuing a Blue Card must, in the same message, announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the infraction,". It is impossible to tell whether a penalty is between an amount in shinies and an amount not in shinies. The rule would be incredibly hard to apply should non-shiny penalties apply, so the best interests of the game combine with the rule's context to mandate shinies-only penalties. "E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the distribution of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed" This rule consistently uses the word "money". A synonym of "money" is "currency". Shinies are a currency, favours are not. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > I favor this CFJ, and can judge it immediately. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >> Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not >> effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can >> only have a penalty imposed in shinies. >> >> Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar Telnaior. >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >>> On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:47 AM, ATMunn wrote: I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now interim. On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 > fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with > agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or > similar) >>> >>> I stand for election. I may have a campaign proposal later on. >>> >>> -o >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Why does it take me a few minutes to receive messages D: Whatever, Alexis beat Rada to the punch anyway. On 2017-11-23 10:51, Telnaior wrote: With the support of myself and ATMunn, I Levy the Fine. I then act on behalf of VJ Rada to transfer the favours according to the fine's distribution. On 2017-11-23 10:47, ATMunn wrote: I support. On 11/22/2017 6:45 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 05:47 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: This still works because e CAN do so, but it violated a SHALL NOT. I point my finger at VJ Rada for distributing favours, when not allowed to by a rule. I had missed the Blue Card option, thank you PSS. V.J. Rada is clearly guilty of this. I impose the Cold Hand of Justice on V.J. Rada, imposing a Blue Card for illegally distributing favours to emself. A Blue Card is appropriate in this circumstance because e profited significantly and directly from the violation. Per Rule 2506, I can impose a fine up to the profit of the violation; the profit was 3000 NPR Favours, and so I impose a fine of 3000 NPR Favours. As Favours cannot be transferred to Agora to pay the fine, and every Agoran is aggrieved by this scam, I direct that the favours be distributed evenly among Agorans other than myself (who cannot be a beneficiary of the fine) and V.J. Rada, as follows: 214 each to: Aris o 天火狐 Quazie Cuddle Beam G. ATMunn Trigon Gaelan nichdel 215 each to: G. Telnaior PSS Corona I intend, with two support, to Levy a Fine upon V.J. Rada for the above Blue Card.
DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 18:49 VJ Rada wrote: > Good, I'm glad o. This Blue Card is legal, but the penalty is not > effective. I call an urgent CFJ with the statement: A blue card can > only have a penalty imposed in shinies. > > Alexis and PSS are and should be obviously disqualified...I bar Telnaior. > Arguments: Rule 2506 says that the penalty must be "between 1 shiny and the greater of 25 shinies and the amount the bad sport profited from the infraction,". If the profit is not in shinies, this leads to only two possible intepretations of the rule: a) The maximum is the shiny-equivalent of the amount profited. b) The maximum can be in the currency profited. There is no specification that the maximum must be in shinies, however, so I think b) is correct. Clearly, the "amount e profited" in this case is 3000 NPR Favours, it is not some number of shinies. Thus, a fine of anything between 1 shiny and 3000 NPR Favours is valid; it's unclear what fits in between this, but 3000 NPR Favours must be included since it is the end of the allowable range. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
That reminds me more of a Demotivational poster than a meme... (we can solve the problem by defining anything actually funny to not be a meme). On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > I have found one, linked here: > https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED147/55942c3c5fa5b.jpeg > > A mentor of mine has added the following text when showing it: This is like > my dog. He brings a > smile to my face, but I have to kick him down the stairs, then he rolls down, > but otherwise he > does nothing else. > > DISCLAIMER: No dogs are harmed or actually kicked by my mentor and it was > only intended as a joke. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > On Nov 22, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Aris Merchant > > wrote: > > > > I am firmly opposed to memes. The represent the end of morality in our > > society. ;) Serriously though, I have yet to find a meme that actually > > feels funny to me. > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:05 PM VJ Rada wrote: > > > >> Character limit is good to know: means that if I ever do something > >> this stupid again I'll just email everybody individually (yes, I > >> suspected it was obviously not actually gmail's fault, the message > >> sent just fine) > >> > >> And yes, "thanks Obama" is not a view on the real Obama. And your hard > >> anti-meme stance, PSS, is irreconcilable with the fact that there is > >> more than one politician in our very game right now with jokes > >> referencing real politicians ("Malcolm Turncoat") > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Kerim Aydin > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did > actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards. > just gmail sucks. thaks obama. > >>> > >>> omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off > >>> for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit). Can't remember what the > >>> limit was or if it's still on. > >>> > >>> [PSS - 'thanks Obama' is a joke meme, even Obama used it...] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> From V.J. Rada > >> > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
I have found one, linked here: https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED147/55942c3c5fa5b.jpeg A mentor of mine has added the following text when showing it: This is like my dog. He brings a smile to my face, but I have to kick him down the stairs, then he rolls down, but otherwise he does nothing else. DISCLAIMER: No dogs are harmed or actually kicked by my mentor and it was only intended as a joke. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Nov 22, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I am firmly opposed to memes. The represent the end of morality in our > society. ;) Serriously though, I have yet to find a meme that actually > feels funny to me. > > -Aris > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:05 PM VJ Rada wrote: > >> Character limit is good to know: means that if I ever do something >> this stupid again I'll just email everybody individually (yes, I >> suspected it was obviously not actually gmail's fault, the message >> sent just fine) >> >> And yes, "thanks Obama" is not a view on the real Obama. And your hard >> anti-meme stance, PSS, is irreconcilable with the fact that there is >> more than one politician in our very game right now with jokes >> referencing real politicians ("Malcolm Turncoat") >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards. just gmail sucks. thaks obama. >>> >>> omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off >>> for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit). Can't remember what the >>> limit was or if it's still on. >>> >>> [PSS - 'thanks Obama' is a joke meme, even Obama used it...] >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Corona wrote: > I'll concede that my argument only applies if players think them > winning would be, by far, the most fun/ desirable experience. If > another player has done a lot for Agora, it will be natural to say "It > would be awesome if e were rewarded for eir effort". Also, of course, > Imperial nomics exist, where players derive pleasure from pleading to > the Emperor/ress. Well there's also the "competition is fun" aspect! We decided on a set of rules. If someone jumps into the lead using those rules, then it's "fun" to see if you can stop them using the same rules, otherwise the win doesn't feel earned. So it's good to keep win conditions as something that's competitive. (winning by victory election was kinda blah, though there were extenuating circumstances in that one such that the "win" was a means to a greater end for some folks). If someone "did something for Agora", the more usual route is a relevant Patent Title.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Okay, thanks for the explanation, but I still say anyone who wants to bring any kind of politics into Agora in anything other than a fun, light-hearted, joking, and non-demeaning way should pack their bags and get lost. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Nov 22, 2017, at 4:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >> it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did >> actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards. >> just gmail sucks. thaks obama. > > omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off > for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit). Can't remember what the > limit was or if it's still on. > > [PSS - 'thanks Obama' is a joke meme, even Obama used it...] > > > signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
We've had plenty of games that don't need any deceit or trading of wins. Simple trivia or puzzle contests for example.Farming games where everyone invests in a different portfolio, and portfolio success has random elements. I think, as impossible as it is to define algorithmically, it's not too difficult to know what rules "intend" to do much of the time, and it's often pretty clear when a win is "as intended" versus "via loophole". On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > it is a strong expectation in every game that every player can win the > game, and has a decent chance of doing so. that's just what games do. > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:51 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > in that sense so is every game mechanic in every game ever created. > > > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Corona wrote: > >> Yes, but enacting ribbons that everyone has a roughly equal chance of > >> winning is kind of "trading wins" > >> > >> On 11/22/17, Aris Merchant wrote: > >>> What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of > >>> them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of > >>> honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think > >>> the players who enacted them each expected to win by them. > >>> > >>> -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
I'll concede that my argument only applies if players think them winning would be, by far, the most fun/ desirable experience. If another player has done a lot for Agora, it will be natural to say "It would be awesome if e were rewarded for eir effort". Also, of course, Imperial nomics exist, where players derive pleasure from pleading to the Emperor/ress. On 11/22/17, Aris Merchant wrote: > What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of > them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of > honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think > the players who enacted them each expected to win by them. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Corona > wrote: >> I would not vote for such a mechanic unless I estimated, based on past >> experience, my proposal-voting abilities to be above these of other >> players. If it turns out a player is capable of voting on more >> proposals per month than I estimated, they have arguably commited some >> deceit by not correcting my misconception about their voting ability. >> (And perhaps by rarely voting on proposals prior to the win mechanic's >> introduction, even if they had the time and it did not bore them or >> anything) >> >> On 11/22/17, Alexis Hunt wrote: >>> That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in >>> other >>> games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could >>> decide >>> to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month; >>> no >>> deceit is necessary for the competition. >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona, wrote: >>> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'. On 11/22/17, ATMunn wrote: > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to prevent > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so > what? They > become the Speaker, and the game moves on. > > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player >>> to >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with >>> Shinies >>> alone. >> >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) >> > >>> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Also, I don't think they were intended to actually mislead players, which is one of the requirements for a faking violation. You could not have thought that anyone was actually going to believe them, so no violation would have occurred. -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:53 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > i copied and pasted 3,000 lies, yes. they were the same lie, and i > suppose the cards could have been challenged as such (given messages > are supposed to be taken as a whole for no faking). > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> Were they all the same lie? If so they may just be one violation in total >> anyway. (by the same principle of saying "I support" on a single intent >> 1000 times is only 1 support). >> >> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >>> The violations were just no faking violations, not related to the >>> reeferee's power. >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > Oh, is there a finger-pointing that I should be doing something about >>> > because of this clause: >>> > >>> >> When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over >>> >> an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the >>> >> Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the >>> >> investigation and thereby become the investigator. >>> > >>> > It would be amusing if the 3000 violations belatedly came through and >>> > I got to do this. >>> > >>> > It also reveals a hole in the above clause, if the Referee gets to eir >>> > own punishment before the Arbitor, the Referee can conclude the >>> > investigation before the Arbitor can do anything about it... >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From V.J. Rada >>> >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
The lies were not the same every time though (for example: I am Uruguayan). They were in the form "in the next sentence, I will do something). So they were seperate. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:53 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > i copied and pasted 3,000 lies, yes. they were the same lie, and i > suppose the cards could have been challenged as such (given messages > are supposed to be taken as a whole for no faking). > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> Were they all the same lie? If so they may just be one violation in total >> anyway. (by the same principle of saying "I support" on a single intent >> 1000 times is only 1 support). >> >> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >>> The violations were just no faking violations, not related to the >>> reeferee's power. >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > Oh, is there a finger-pointing that I should be doing something about >>> > because of this clause: >>> > >>> >> When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over >>> >> an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the >>> >> Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the >>> >> investigation and thereby become the investigator. >>> > >>> > It would be amusing if the 3000 violations belatedly came through and >>> > I got to do this. >>> > >>> > It also reveals a hole in the above clause, if the Referee gets to eir >>> > own punishment before the Arbitor, the Referee can conclude the >>> > investigation before the Arbitor can do anything about it... >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From V.J. Rada >>> >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
The basis is there are some kind of violations that are truly impossible to take back. E.g. if it's against the rule to reveal some secret information, and you reveal it, you can't undo that. Once you have that base case (situation where it's impossible to take something back), it's easy to extend the concept to situations where it's merely impractical to take it back. On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Corona wrote: > That's what I wondered: even though one annotation in the FLR says: > "Players must obey the rules, even if no rule says so", which would, > IMO, imply that ILLEGAL actions are IMPOSSIBLE, yet Agorans keep the > distinction, as was explained to me by somebody, because an ILLEGAL > action and its consequences do not have to be rolled back if it's > inconsequential or even beneficial to preserving the spirit of Agora > > On 11/22/17, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Corona wrote: > >> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable > >> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself > >> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some > >> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than > >> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'. > > > > There's a certain ethical stance that's been expressed around here; wins > > can be deceitful as long as they're LEGAL, but ILLEGAL wins are cheaper > > somehow and some people just won't break the rules in order to win, or at > > least not if the rules-breakage is critical to the win. Otherwise, why > > make > > anything ILLEGAL at all? > > > > Again with the boardgame example, if you got to the end of a boardgame > > and the winner confessed "actually I had an advantage because I secretly > > kept an extra card in my hand the whole game", would you still call em > > the winner or would you say e cheated and didn't win? > > > > (Also: this discussion will get more intense if we commodify punishments > > via Blot currencies).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
i copied and pasted 3,000 lies, yes. they were the same lie, and i suppose the cards could have been challenged as such (given messages are supposed to be taken as a whole for no faking). On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Were they all the same lie? If so they may just be one violation in total > anyway. (by the same principle of saying "I support" on a single intent > 1000 times is only 1 support). > > On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >> The violations were just no faking violations, not related to the >> reeferee's power. >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > >> > >> > Oh, is there a finger-pointing that I should be doing something about >> > because of this clause: >> > >> >> When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over >> >> an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the >> >> Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the >> >> investigation and thereby become the investigator. >> > >> > It would be amusing if the 3000 violations belatedly came through and >> > I got to do this. >> > >> > It also reveals a hole in the above clause, if the Referee gets to eir >> > own punishment before the Arbitor, the Referee can conclude the >> > investigation before the Arbitor can do anything about it... >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Were they all the same lie? If so they may just be one violation in total anyway. (by the same principle of saying "I support" on a single intent 1000 times is only 1 support). On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > The violations were just no faking violations, not related to the > reeferee's power. > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > Oh, is there a finger-pointing that I should be doing something about > > because of this clause: > > > >> When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over > >> an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the > >> Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the > >> investigation and thereby become the investigator. > > > > It would be amusing if the 3000 violations belatedly came through and > > I got to do this. > > > > It also reveals a hole in the above clause, if the Referee gets to eir > > own punishment before the Arbitor, the Referee can conclude the > > investigation before the Arbitor can do anything about it... > > > > > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
it is a strong expectation in every game that every player can win the game, and has a decent chance of doing so. that's just what games do. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:51 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > in that sense so is every game mechanic in every game ever created. > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Corona wrote: >> Yes, but enacting ribbons that everyone has a roughly equal chance of >> winning is kind of "trading wins" >> >> On 11/22/17, Aris Merchant wrote: >>> What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of >>> them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of >>> honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think >>> the players who enacted them each expected to win by them. >>> >>> -Aris >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Corona >>> wrote: I would not vote for such a mechanic unless I estimated, based on past experience, my proposal-voting abilities to be above these of other players. If it turns out a player is capable of voting on more proposals per month than I estimated, they have arguably commited some deceit by not correcting my misconception about their voting ability. (And perhaps by rarely voting on proposals prior to the win mechanic's introduction, even if they had the time and it did not bore them or anything) On 11/22/17, Alexis Hunt wrote: > That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in > other > games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could > decide > to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month; > no > deceit is necessary for the competition. > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona, wrote: > >> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable >> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself >> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some >> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than >> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'. >> >> On 11/22/17, ATMunn wrote: >> > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to >> prevent >> > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so >> > what? >> They >> > become the Speaker, and the game moves on. >> > >> > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player >> >>> to >> >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with >> >>> Shinies >> >>> alone. >> >> >> >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a >> >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) >> >> >> > >> > >>> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
in that sense so is every game mechanic in every game ever created. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Corona wrote: > Yes, but enacting ribbons that everyone has a roughly equal chance of > winning is kind of "trading wins" > > On 11/22/17, Aris Merchant wrote: >> What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of >> them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of >> honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think >> the players who enacted them each expected to win by them. >> >> -Aris >> >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Corona >> wrote: >>> I would not vote for such a mechanic unless I estimated, based on past >>> experience, my proposal-voting abilities to be above these of other >>> players. If it turns out a player is capable of voting on more >>> proposals per month than I estimated, they have arguably commited some >>> deceit by not correcting my misconception about their voting ability. >>> (And perhaps by rarely voting on proposals prior to the win mechanic's >>> introduction, even if they had the time and it did not bore them or >>> anything) >>> >>> On 11/22/17, Alexis Hunt wrote: That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in other games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could decide to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month; no deceit is necessary for the competition. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona, wrote: > Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable > practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself > a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some > level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than > a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'. > > On 11/22/17, ATMunn wrote: > > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to > prevent > > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so > > what? > They > > become the Speaker, and the game moves on. > > > > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player > >>> to > >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with > >>> Shinies > >>> alone. > >> > >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a > >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) > >> > > > >> -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Yes, but enacting ribbons that everyone has a roughly equal chance of winning is kind of "trading wins" On 11/22/17, Aris Merchant wrote: > What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of > them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of > honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think > the players who enacted them each expected to win by them. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Corona > wrote: >> I would not vote for such a mechanic unless I estimated, based on past >> experience, my proposal-voting abilities to be above these of other >> players. If it turns out a player is capable of voting on more >> proposals per month than I estimated, they have arguably commited some >> deceit by not correcting my misconception about their voting ability. >> (And perhaps by rarely voting on proposals prior to the win mechanic's >> introduction, even if they had the time and it did not bore them or >> anything) >> >> On 11/22/17, Alexis Hunt wrote: >>> That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in >>> other >>> games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could >>> decide >>> to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month; >>> no >>> deceit is necessary for the competition. >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona, wrote: >>> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'. On 11/22/17, ATMunn wrote: > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to prevent > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so > what? They > become the Speaker, and the game moves on. > > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player >>> to >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with >>> Shinies >>> alone. >> >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) >> > >>> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
That's what I wondered: even though one annotation in the FLR says: "Players must obey the rules, even if no rule says so", which would, IMO, imply that ILLEGAL actions are IMPOSSIBLE, yet Agorans keep the distinction, as was explained to me by somebody, because an ILLEGAL action and its consequences do not have to be rolled back if it's inconsequential or even beneficial to preserving the spirit of Agora On 11/22/17, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Corona wrote: >> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable >> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself >> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some >> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than >> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'. > > There's a certain ethical stance that's been expressed around here; wins > can be deceitful as long as they're LEGAL, but ILLEGAL wins are cheaper > somehow and some people just won't break the rules in order to win, or at > least not if the rules-breakage is critical to the win. Otherwise, why > make > anything ILLEGAL at all? > > Again with the boardgame example, if you got to the end of a boardgame > and the winner confessed "actually I had an advantage because I secretly > kept an extra card in my hand the whole game", would you still call em > the winner or would you say e cheated and didn't win? > > (Also: this discussion will get more intense if we commodify punishments > via Blot currencies). > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think the players who enacted them each expected to win by them. -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Corona wrote: > I would not vote for such a mechanic unless I estimated, based on past > experience, my proposal-voting abilities to be above these of other > players. If it turns out a player is capable of voting on more > proposals per month than I estimated, they have arguably commited some > deceit by not correcting my misconception about their voting ability. > (And perhaps by rarely voting on proposals prior to the win mechanic's > introduction, even if they had the time and it did not bore them or > anything) > > On 11/22/17, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in other >> games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could decide >> to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month; no >> deceit is necessary for the competition. >> >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona, wrote: >> >>> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable >>> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself >>> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some >>> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than >>> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'. >>> >>> On 11/22/17, ATMunn wrote: >>> > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to >>> prevent >>> > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so what? >>> They >>> > become the Speaker, and the game moves on. >>> > >>> > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >>> >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: >>> >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to >>> >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies >>> >>> alone. >>> >> >>> >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a >>> >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) >>> >> >>> > >>> >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
The violations were just no faking violations, not related to the reeferee's power. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Oh, is there a finger-pointing that I should be doing something about > because of this clause: > >> When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over >> an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the >> Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the >> investigation and thereby become the investigator. > > It would be amusing if the 3000 violations belatedly came through and > I got to do this. > > It also reveals a hole in the above clause, if the Referee gets to eir > own punishment before the Arbitor, the Referee can conclude the > investigation before the Arbitor can do anything about it... > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
I would not vote for such a mechanic unless I estimated, based on past experience, my proposal-voting abilities to be above these of other players. If it turns out a player is capable of voting on more proposals per month than I estimated, they have arguably commited some deceit by not correcting my misconception about their voting ability. (And perhaps by rarely voting on proposals prior to the win mechanic's introduction, even if they had the time and it did not bore them or anything) On 11/22/17, Alexis Hunt wrote: > That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in other > games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could decide > to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month; no > deceit is necessary for the competition. > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona, wrote: > >> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable >> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself >> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some >> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than >> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'. >> >> On 11/22/17, ATMunn wrote: >> > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to >> prevent >> > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so what? >> They >> > become the Speaker, and the game moves on. >> > >> > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to >> >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies >> >>> alone. >> >> >> >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a >> >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) >> >> >> > >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Corona wrote: > Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable > practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself > a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some > level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than > a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'. There's a certain ethical stance that's been expressed around here; wins can be deceitful as long as they're LEGAL, but ILLEGAL wins are cheaper somehow and some people just won't break the rules in order to win, or at least not if the rules-breakage is critical to the win. Otherwise, why make anything ILLEGAL at all? Again with the boardgame example, if you got to the end of a boardgame and the winner confessed "actually I had an advantage because I secretly kept an extra card in my hand the whole game", would you still call em the winner or would you say e cheated and didn't win? (Also: this discussion will get more intense if we commodify punishments via Blot currencies).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Oh, is there a finger-pointing that I should be doing something about because of this clause: > When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over > an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the > Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the > investigation and thereby become the investigator. It would be amusing if the 3000 violations belatedly came through and I got to do this. It also reveals a hole in the above clause, if the Referee gets to eir own punishment before the Arbitor, the Referee can conclude the investigation before the Arbitor can do anything about it...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in other games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could decide to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month; no deceit is necessary for the competition. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona, wrote: > Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable > practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself > a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some > level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than > a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'. > > On 11/22/17, ATMunn wrote: > > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to > prevent > > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so what? > They > > become the Speaker, and the game moves on. > > > > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to > >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies > >>> alone. > >> > >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a > >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) > >> > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'. On 11/22/17, ATMunn wrote: > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to prevent > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so what? They > become the Speaker, and the game moves on. > > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies >>> alone. >> >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
I don't really dislike memes in general, but there are some that I certainly don't like, and some are outright stupid. There are some good ones in my opinion, though. Let's not get into a big meme vs anti-meme discussion, though. :P On 11/22/2017 5:25 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I am firmly opposed to memes. The represent the end of morality in our society. ;) Serriously though, I have yet to find a meme that actually feels funny to me. -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:05 PM VJ Rada wrote: Character limit is good to know: means that if I ever do something this stupid again I'll just email everybody individually (yes, I suspected it was obviously not actually gmail's fault, the message sent just fine) And yes, "thanks Obama" is not a view on the real Obama. And your hard anti-meme stance, PSS, is irreconcilable with the fact that there is more than one politician in our very game right now with jokes referencing real politicians ("Malcolm Turncoat") On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards. just gmail sucks. thaks obama. omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit). Can't remember what the limit was or if it's still on. [PSS - 'thanks Obama' is a joke meme, even Obama used it...] -- From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Well, I do get it. If someone is the Banker in Monopoly, and says "I win" and you know for a fact that e just took all the money from the bank, a reasonable response is to grab eir money and put it back in the bank (which would also be "against the rules"). [At least that's the excuse I'm sticking with for why I was in a fistfight with my cousin at Christmas 35 years ago]. On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to prevent a > win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so what? They > become the Speaker, and the game moves on. > > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to > > > call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies > > > alone. > > > > I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a > > counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
I am firmly opposed to memes. The represent the end of morality in our society. ;) Serriously though, I have yet to find a meme that actually feels funny to me. -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:05 PM VJ Rada wrote: > Character limit is good to know: means that if I ever do something > this stupid again I'll just email everybody individually (yes, I > suspected it was obviously not actually gmail's fault, the message > sent just fine) > > And yes, "thanks Obama" is not a view on the real Obama. And your hard > anti-meme stance, PSS, is irreconcilable with the fact that there is > more than one politician in our very game right now with jokes > referencing real politicians ("Malcolm Turncoat") > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > >> it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did > >> actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards. > >> just gmail sucks. thaks obama. > > > > omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off > > for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit). Can't remember what the > > limit was or if it's still on. > > > > [PSS - 'thanks Obama' is a joke meme, even Obama used it...] > > > > > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to prevent a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so what? They become the Speaker, and the game moves on. On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote: On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies alone. I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Character limit is good to know: means that if I ever do something this stupid again I'll just email everybody individually (yes, I suspected it was obviously not actually gmail's fault, the message sent just fine) And yes, "thanks Obama" is not a view on the real Obama. And your hard anti-meme stance, PSS, is irreconcilable with the fact that there is more than one politician in our very game right now with jokes referencing real politicians ("Malcolm Turncoat") On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >> it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did >> actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards. >> just gmail sucks. thaks obama. > > omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off > for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit). Can't remember what the > limit was or if it's still on. > > [PSS - 'thanks Obama' is a joke meme, even Obama used it...] > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did > actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards. > just gmail sucks. thaks obama. omd used to have a size-limit on messages that e explicitly turned off for the Rulekeepor (the FLR was over the limit). Can't remember what the limit was or if it's still on. [PSS - 'thanks Obama' is a joke meme, even Obama used it...]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:53 VJ Rada wrote: > it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did > actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards. > just gmail sucks. thaks obama. > That's still rule-breaking. So it doesn't actually end up helping you out. You can, of course, just destroy the favours and then we won't have to go through all this mess.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Someone willing to Favor with intent for fast turnaround? On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:48 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:45 Aris Merchant < > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and > > the > > > serial comma is only required in lists, right? > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > Probably. I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after > > a Black Card is awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration > > took place with eir consent.} > > > > -Alexis > > > H. arbitor, I request that this case be assigned as URGENT. My arguments > will soon follow. > > -Aris >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Three things: a) No, you didn't, it didn't reach the list, but Gmail had nothing to do with it. b) I don't want to argue with you, but what is Obama's connection to this? c) Grab your politics and run miles away with it, it doesn't belong in Agora. On 11/22/2017 04:53 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did > actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards. > just gmail sucks. thaks obama. > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:52 Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >>> >>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote: On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to > call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies > alone. I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) >>> I think in the volume needed, we're looking at rules-violation regardless, >>> someone can correct me if I'm wrong. (I also would not be up to rules- >>> breaking to stop a Win. A dictatorship maybe but not just a win). >>> >>> If we *did* go that route, I'd number the CFJs fractionally and list >>> them all under a single whole number, so I wouldn't use CFJs that actually >>> have some interest for anyone. >>> >> I'm more willing to use rule-breaking to stop a win that is itself a >> product of blatant rule-breaking. I would not use it for a different kind >> of win. > > -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
it wasn't going to be rule-breaking (was pledge-breaking). I did actually commit 3,000 infractions and give myself 3,000 actual cards. just gmail sucks. thaks obama. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:52 Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> > On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> > > Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to >> > > call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies >> > > alone. >> > >> > I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a >> > counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) >> >> I think in the volume needed, we're looking at rules-violation regardless, >> someone can correct me if I'm wrong. (I also would not be up to rules- >> breaking to stop a Win. A dictatorship maybe but not just a win). >> >> If we *did* go that route, I'd number the CFJs fractionally and list >> them all under a single whole number, so I wouldn't use CFJs that actually >> have some interest for anyone. >> > > I'm more willing to use rule-breaking to stop a win that is itself a > product of blatant rule-breaking. I would not use it for a different kind > of win. -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:48 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:45 Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and > the > > serial comma is only required in lists, right? > > > > -Aris > > > > Probably. I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after > a Black Card is awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration > took place with eir consent.} > > -Alexis > H. arbitor, I request that this case be assigned as URGENT. My arguments will soon follow. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
The problem is, "a player or a person" doesn't make terribly much sense in that light. All players are by definition people. -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:44 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and the > serial comma is only required in lists, right? > > -Aris > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > >> I read that as (a player or a person)... not a player or (a person ...). >> >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:42 VJ Rada wrote: >> >> > Oh, sorry, correct. >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Aris Merchant >> > wrote: >> > > You are a player. Read it again. Also, sorry for the links. >> > > >> > > -Aris >> > > >> > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM VJ Rada wrote: >> > > >> > >> My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in >> > august. >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement >> that >> > >> >> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an >> enormous >> > >> abuse >> > >> >> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be >> entrusted >> > with >> > >> >> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits >> of >> > this >> > >> >> scam taken from em. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a >> > win. >> > >> As >> > >> >> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, >> > >> another >> > >> >> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in >> > >> order to >> > >> >> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from >> > >> >> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing >> > >> balloons >> > >> >> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out >> of >> > >> >> existence by proposal. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort >> to >> > me. >> > >> >> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer >> > issue >> > >> >> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences >> > >> politicians >> > >> >> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and >> agrees >> > >> not >> > >> >> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of >> > >> >> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the >> > law, >> > >> >> which I am also loathe to do. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing >> anything >> > >> >> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last >> > >> >> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be >> undone >> > >> >> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so >> that it >> > >> can >> > >> >> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora >> does >> > >> not >> > >> >> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). >> PSS >> > >> >> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of >> Rule >> > >> 2160 >> > >> >> is as follows: >> > >> >> {{{ >> > >> >> A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to >> perform >> > an >> > >> >> action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for >> an >> > >> >> office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e >> held >> > the >> > >> >> office, as long as >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the >> action, >> > >> >> other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e >> > >> >>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may >> > allow >> > >> >> special deputisation. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular >> > office, >> > >> >> via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of >> > >> >> holding that office, to perform the action. This >> > requirement is >> > >> >> fulfilled by the deputy performing the action. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the >> > action >> > >> >> to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the >> aforementioned >> > >> >> time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) >> the >> > >> >> deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier >> that >> > e >> > >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:52 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to > > > call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies > > > alone. > > > > I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a > > counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) > > I think in the volume needed, we're looking at rules-violation regardless, > someone can correct me if I'm wrong. (I also would not be up to rules- > breaking to stop a Win. A dictatorship maybe but not just a win). > > If we *did* go that route, I'd number the CFJs fractionally and list > them all under a single whole number, so I wouldn't use CFJs that actually > have some interest for anyone. > I'm more willing to use rule-breaking to stop a win that is itself a product of blatant rule-breaking. I would not use it for a different kind of win.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
The Oxford comma would be incorrect there. I think if you had meant it the way alexis reads it you would have said "a player or person who" instead of "a player or a person who" but it is true gramamatical ambiguity. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and the > serial comma is only required in lists, right? > > -Aris > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > >> I read that as (a player or a person)... not a player or (a person ...). >> >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:42 VJ Rada wrote: >> >> > Oh, sorry, correct. >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Aris Merchant >> > wrote: >> > > You are a player. Read it again. Also, sorry for the links. >> > > >> > > -Aris >> > > >> > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM VJ Rada wrote: >> > > >> > >> My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in >> > august. >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement >> that >> > >> >> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous >> > >> abuse >> > >> >> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted >> > with >> > >> >> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of >> > this >> > >> >> scam taken from em. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a >> > win. >> > >> As >> > >> >> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, >> > >> another >> > >> >> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in >> > >> order to >> > >> >> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from >> > >> >> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing >> > >> balloons >> > >> >> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out >> of >> > >> >> existence by proposal. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to >> > me. >> > >> >> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer >> > issue >> > >> >> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences >> > >> politicians >> > >> >> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and >> agrees >> > >> not >> > >> >> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of >> > >> >> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the >> > law, >> > >> >> which I am also loathe to do. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing >> anything >> > >> >> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last >> > >> >> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be >> undone >> > >> >> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that >> it >> > >> can >> > >> >> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora >> does >> > >> not >> > >> >> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). >> PSS >> > >> >> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of >> Rule >> > >> 2160 >> > >> >> is as follows: >> > >> >> {{{ >> > >> >> A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform >> > an >> > >> >> action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an >> > >> >> office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held >> > the >> > >> >> office, as long as >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, >> > >> >> other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e >> > >> >>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may >> > allow >> > >> >> special deputisation. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular >> > office, >> > >> >> via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of >> > >> >> holding that office, to perform the action. This >> > requirement is >> > >> >> fulfilled by the deputy performing the action. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the >> > action >> > >> >> to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the >> aforementioned >> > >> >> time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) >> the >> > >> >> deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlie
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:45 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and the > serial comma is only required in lists, right? > > -Aris > Probably. I shiny-CFJ {The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after a Black Card is awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration took place with eir consent.} -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Is it worth CFJing then? It's certainly intended to be the former, and the serial comma is only required in lists, right? -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > I read that as (a player or a person)... not a player or (a person ...). > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:42 VJ Rada wrote: > > > Oh, sorry, correct. > > > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Aris Merchant > > wrote: > > > You are a player. Read it again. Also, sorry for the links. > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM VJ Rada wrote: > > > > > >> My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in > > august. > > >> > > >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant > > >> wrote: > > >> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement > that > > >> >> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous > > >> abuse > > >> >> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted > > with > > >> >> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of > > this > > >> >> scam taken from em. > > >> >> > > >> >> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a > > win. > > >> As > > >> >> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, > > >> another > > >> >> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in > > >> order to > > >> >> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from > > >> >> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing > > >> balloons > > >> >> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out > of > > >> >> existence by proposal. > > >> >> > > >> >> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to > > me. > > >> >> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer > > issue > > >> >> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences > > >> politicians > > >> >> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and > agrees > > >> not > > >> >> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of > > >> >> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the > > law, > > >> >> which I am also loathe to do. > > >> >> > > >> >> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing > anything > > >> >> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last > > >> >> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be > undone > > >> >> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that > it > > >> can > > >> >> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora > does > > >> not > > >> >> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach. > > >> >> > > >> >> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). > PSS > > >> >> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of > Rule > > >> 2160 > > >> >> is as follows: > > >> >> {{{ > > >> >> A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform > > an > > >> >> action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an > > >> >> office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held > > the > > >> >> office, as long as > > >> >> > > >> >> 1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, > > >> >> other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and > > >> >> > > >> >> 2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e > > >> >>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation. > > >> >> > > >> >> Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may > > allow > > >> >> special deputisation. > > >> >> > > >> >> A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular > > office, > > >> >> via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true: > > >> >> > > >> >> 1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of > > >> >> holding that office, to perform the action. This > > requirement is > > >> >> fulfilled by the deputy performing the action. > > >> >> > > >> >> 2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the > > action > > >> >> to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant. > > >> >> > > >> >> 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the > aforementioned > > >> >> time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) > the > > >> >> deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier > that > > e > > >> >> intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of > the > > >> >> particular action. > > >> >> > > >> >> When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an > elected > > >> >> office, e becomes the holder of that office. > > >> >> }}} > > >> >> > > >> >> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact > > possible to >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
I read that as (a player or a person)... not a player or (a person ...). On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 16:42 VJ Rada wrote: > Oh, sorry, correct. > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > You are a player. Read it again. Also, sorry for the links. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM VJ Rada wrote: > > > >> My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in > august. > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant > >> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt > wrote: > >> > > >> >> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that > >> >> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous > >> abuse > >> >> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted > with > >> >> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of > this > >> >> scam taken from em. > >> >> > >> >> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a > win. > >> As > >> >> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, > >> another > >> >> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in > >> order to > >> >> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from > >> >> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing > >> balloons > >> >> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of > >> >> existence by proposal. > >> >> > >> >> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to > me. > >> >> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer > issue > >> >> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences > >> politicians > >> >> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees > >> not > >> >> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of > >> >> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the > law, > >> >> which I am also loathe to do. > >> >> > >> >> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything > >> >> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last > >> >> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone > >> >> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it > >> can > >> >> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does > >> not > >> >> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach. > >> >> > >> >> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS > >> >> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule > >> 2160 > >> >> is as follows: > >> >> {{{ > >> >> A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform > an > >> >> action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an > >> >> office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held > the > >> >> office, as long as > >> >> > >> >> 1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, > >> >> other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and > >> >> > >> >> 2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e > >> >>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation. > >> >> > >> >> Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may > allow > >> >> special deputisation. > >> >> > >> >> A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular > office, > >> >> via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true: > >> >> > >> >> 1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of > >> >> holding that office, to perform the action. This > requirement is > >> >> fulfilled by the deputy performing the action. > >> >> > >> >> 2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the > action > >> >> to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant. > >> >> > >> >> 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned > >> >> time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the > >> >> deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that > e > >> >> intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the > >> >> particular action. > >> >> > >> >> When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected > >> >> office, e becomes the holder of that office. > >> >> }}} > >> >> > >> >> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact > possible to > >> >> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I > >> Point > >> >> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending > this > >> >> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare > this > >> >> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans. > >> >> > >> >> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being > >> >> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Div
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Oh, sorry, correct. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > You are a player. Read it again. Also, sorry for the links. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM VJ Rada wrote: > >> My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in august. >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt wrote: >> > >> >> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that >> >> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous >> abuse >> >> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with >> >> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this >> >> scam taken from em. >> >> >> >> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. >> As >> >> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, >> another >> >> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in >> order to >> >> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from >> >> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing >> balloons >> >> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of >> >> existence by proposal. >> >> >> >> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me. >> >> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue >> >> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences >> politicians >> >> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees >> not >> >> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of >> >> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law, >> >> which I am also loathe to do. >> >> >> >> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything >> >> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last >> >> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone >> >> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it >> can >> >> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does >> not >> >> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach. >> >> >> >> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS >> >> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule >> 2160 >> >> is as follows: >> >> {{{ >> >> A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an >> >> action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an >> >> office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the >> >> office, as long as >> >> >> >> 1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, >> >> other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and >> >> >> >> 2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e >> >>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation. >> >> >> >> Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow >> >> special deputisation. >> >> >> >> A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office, >> >> via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true: >> >> >> >> 1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of >> >> holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is >> >> fulfilled by the deputy performing the action. >> >> >> >> 2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action >> >> to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant. >> >> >> >> 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned >> >> time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the >> >> deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e >> >> intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the >> >> particular action. >> >> >> >> When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected >> >> office, e becomes the holder of that office. >> >> }}} >> >> >> >> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to >> >> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I >> Point >> >> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this >> >> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this >> >> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans. >> >> >> >> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being >> >> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order, >> >> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed >> in em >> >> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers >> >> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex >> mechanical >> >> system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules >> >> that can possibly
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
You are a player. Read it again. Also, sorry for the links. -Aris On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:38 PM VJ Rada wrote: > My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in august. > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > >> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that > >> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous > abuse > >> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with > >> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this > >> scam taken from em. > >> > >> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. > As > >> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, > another > >> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in > order to > >> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from > >> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing > balloons > >> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of > >> existence by proposal. > >> > >> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me. > >> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue > >> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences > politicians > >> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees > not > >> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of > >> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law, > >> which I am also loathe to do. > >> > >> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything > >> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last > >> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone > >> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it > can > >> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does > not > >> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach. > >> > >> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS > >> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule > 2160 > >> is as follows: > >> {{{ > >> A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an > >> action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an > >> office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the > >> office, as long as > >> > >> 1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, > >> other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and > >> > >> 2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e > >>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation. > >> > >> Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow > >> special deputisation. > >> > >> A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office, > >> via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true: > >> > >> 1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of > >> holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is > >> fulfilled by the deputy performing the action. > >> > >> 2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action > >> to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant. > >> > >> 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned > >> time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the > >> deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e > >> intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the > >> particular action. > >> > >> When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected > >> office, e becomes the holder of that office. > >> }}} > >> > >> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to > >> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I > Point > >> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this > >> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this > >> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans. > >> > >> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being > >> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order, > >> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed > in em > >> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers > >> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex > mechanical > >> system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules > >> that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win > as a > >> result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a > Black > >> Card is the only available punishmen
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
But you are a player. On 11/22/2017 04:38 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in august. > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt wrote: >> >>> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that >>> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous abuse >>> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with >>> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this >>> scam taken from em. >>> >>> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. As >>> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, another >>> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in order to >>> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from >>> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing balloons >>> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of >>> existence by proposal. >>> >>> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me. >>> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue >>> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians >>> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not >>> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of >>> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law, >>> which I am also loathe to do. >>> >>> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything >>> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last >>> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone >>> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it can >>> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does not >>> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach. >>> >>> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS >>> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule 2160 >>> is as follows: >>> {{{ >>> A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an >>> action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an >>> office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the >>> office, as long as >>> >>> 1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, >>> other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and >>> >>> 2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e >>>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation. >>> >>> Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow >>> special deputisation. >>> >>> A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office, >>> via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true: >>> >>> 1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of >>> holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is >>> fulfilled by the deputy performing the action. >>> >>> 2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action >>> to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant. >>> >>> 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned >>> time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the >>> deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e >>> intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the >>> particular action. >>> >>> When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected >>> office, e becomes the holder of that office. >>> }}} >>> >>> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to >>> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I Point >>> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this >>> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this >>> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans. >>> >>> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being >>> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order, >>> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed in em >>> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers >>> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical >>> system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules >>> that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a >>> result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black >>> Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory. >>> >>> Now, the above may seem IMPOSSIBLE, as Rule 2507 says that Black Cards >>> cannot be issued to players. However, it does not co
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
My most recent deregistration was with my consent? It was back in august. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt wrote: > >> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that >> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous abuse >> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with >> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this >> scam taken from em. >> >> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. As >> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, another >> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in order to >> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from >> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing balloons >> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of >> existence by proposal. >> >> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me. >> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue >> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians >> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not >> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of >> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law, >> which I am also loathe to do. >> >> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything >> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last >> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone >> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it can >> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does not >> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach. >> >> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS >> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule 2160 >> is as follows: >> {{{ >> A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an >> action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an >> office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the >> office, as long as >> >> 1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, >> other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and >> >> 2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e >>is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation. >> >> Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow >> special deputisation. >> >> A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office, >> via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true: >> >> 1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of >> holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is >> fulfilled by the deputy performing the action. >> >> 2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action >> to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant. >> >> 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned >> time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the >> deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e >> intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the >> particular action. >> >> When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected >> office, e becomes the holder of that office. >> }}} >> >> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to >> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I Point >> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this >> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this >> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans. >> >> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being >> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order, >> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed in em >> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers >> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical >> system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules >> that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a >> result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black >> Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory. >> >> Now, the above may seem IMPOSSIBLE, as Rule 2507 says that Black Cards >> cannot be issued to players. However, it does not contain a claim of >> precedence over other rules in this regard, and Rule 2451 authorizes me to >> award any card to any player, using Dive. Given the lack o
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Nevermind, I didn't read about the deputisation then. On 11/22/17, Corona wrote: > I nominate myself for referee, and pledge to withdraw my nomination if > I become Herald > > On 11/22/17, ATMunn wrote: >> I pledge to make myself a candidate for Referee if nobody else does before >> I >> initiate the Agoran Decision to decide the winner. >> >> I don't want the office, but I don't want it to be left vacant, either. >> >> On 11/22/2017 10:47 AM, ATMunn wrote: >>> I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now >>> interim. >>> >>> On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or similar) >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:15 AM Alexis Hunt wrote: > As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that > fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous abuse > of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with > the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this > scam taken from em. > > As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. As > far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, another > officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in order to > award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from > sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing balloons > to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of > existence by proposal. > > I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me. > Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue > illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians > sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not > to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of > responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law, > which I am also loathe to do. > > There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything > outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last > resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone > quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it can > be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does not > agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach. > > First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS > mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule 2160 > is as follows: > {{{ > A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an > action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an > office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the > office, as long as > > 1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, > other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and > > 2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e >is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation. > > Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow > special deputisation. > > A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office, > via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true: > > 1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of > holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is > fulfilled by the deputy performing the action. > > 2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action > to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant. > > 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned > time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the > deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e > intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the > particular action. > > When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected > office, e becomes the holder of that office. > }}} > > Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to > deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I Point > my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this > message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this > Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans. > > Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being > reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order, > issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed in em > as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers > significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical > system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules > that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a > result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black > Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory. > > Now, the above may seem IMPOSSIBLE, as Rule 2507 says that Black Cards > cannot be issued to players. However, it does not contain a claim of > precedence over other rules in this regard, and Rule 2451 authorizes me to > award any card to any player, using Dive. Given the lack of relevant > precedence claims in either rule, by Rule 1030, the rule with the lowest ID > number prevails. Thus, it is POSSIBLE for me to award a Black Card and the > precedence clause in Rule 2451 makes it LEGAL for me
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
"Cards" is power 2. "Executive Orders" is power 2 and Dive says "notwithstanding the cards rule" or something like that. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I think that it is clear that this won't work because 2504, the higher power > rule states that your action is INEFFECTIVE. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > >> On Nov 22, 2017, at 2:15 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> >> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that >> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous abuse >> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with >> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this >> scam taken from em. >> >> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. As >> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, another >> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in order to >> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from >> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing balloons >> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of >> existence by proposal. >> >> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me. >> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue >> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians >> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not >> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of >> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law, >> which I am also loathe to do. >> >> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything >> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last >> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone >> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it can >> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does not >> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach. >> >> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS >> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule 2160 >> is as follows: >> {{{ >> A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an >> action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an >> office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the >> office, as long as >> >> 1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, >> other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and >> >> 2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e >> is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation. >> >> Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow >> special deputisation. >> >> A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office, >> via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true: >> >> 1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of >> holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is >> fulfilled by the deputy performing the action. >> >> 2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action >> to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant. >> >> 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned >> time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the >> deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e >> intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the >> particular action. >> >> When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected >> office, e becomes the holder of that office. >> }}} >> >> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to >> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I Point >> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this >> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this >> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans. >> >> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being >> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order, >> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed in em >> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers >> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical >> system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules >> that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a >> result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black >> Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory. >> >> Now, the above may seem IMPOSSI
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
black card? that's the only remedy, although the referee is free to not card. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Yes I was just doing the sums of AP and shinies and realizing same. > > Well if a non-player wants to take this route I'm game to do the Officing. > Will raise an interesting question on what happens if a non-player > unequivocally breaks a rule ("A person SHALL NOT initiate an excess case.") > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to call >> sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies alone. >> >> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:34 Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> > > Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue >> > > illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences >> > politicians >> > > sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not >> > > to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of >> > > responsibility. >> > >> > If some people call a bunch of CFJs (on trivial matters), and others favor >> > them, and I assign them and they judge, and I award, can we get sufficient >> > judicial favours spread around to counteract, entirely legally? (if we >> > don't hit the Excess limit). >> > >> > Further if judges file Motions after judging and then re-judge, they >> > can be awarded twice. If then the group-file option is used with a gang >> > of three conspirators, three times. (I'm actually amazed no one has used >> > Motions to double their judicial rewards so far, but I guess the rewards >> > are low in normal circumstances). >> > >> > Sorry I haven't worked through the win mechanism to know if this works, I >> > just noticed I could award favors for CFJs. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
I nominate myself for referee, and pledge to withdraw my nomination if I become Herald On 11/22/17, ATMunn wrote: > I pledge to make myself a candidate for Referee if nobody else does before I > initiate the Agoran Decision to decide the winner. > > I don't want the office, but I don't want it to be left vacant, either. > > On 11/22/2017 10:47 AM, ATMunn wrote: >> I, as ADoP, initiate an election for Referee, as the office is now >> interim. >> >> On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: >>> I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 >>> fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with >>> agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or >>> similar) >>> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
I think that it is clear that this won't work because 2504, the higher power rule states that your action is INEFFECTIVE. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Nov 22, 2017, at 2:15 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that > fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous abuse > of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with > the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this > scam taken from em. > > As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. As > far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, another > officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in order to > award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from > sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing balloons > to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of > existence by proposal. > > I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me. > Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue > illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians > sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not > to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of > responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law, > which I am also loathe to do. > > There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything > outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last > resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone > quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it can > be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does not > agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach. > > First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS > mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule 2160 > is as follows: > {{{ > A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an > action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an > office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the > office, as long as > > 1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, > other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and > > 2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e > is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation. > > Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow > special deputisation. > > A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office, > via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true: > > 1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of > holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is > fulfilled by the deputy performing the action. > > 2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action > to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant. > > 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned > time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the > deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e > intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the > particular action. > > When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected > office, e becomes the holder of that office. > }}} > > Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to > deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I Point > my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this > message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this > Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans. > > Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being > reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order, > issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed in em > as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers > significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical > system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules > that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a > result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black > Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory. > > Now, the above may seem IMPOSSIBLE, as Rule 2507 says that Black Cards > cannot be issued to players. However, it does not contain a claim of > precedence over other rules in this regard, and Rule 2451 authorizes me to > award any card to any player, using Dive. Given the lack of relevant > precedence claims
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to > > call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies > > alone. > > I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a > counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) I think in the volume needed, we're looking at rules-violation regardless, someone can correct me if I'm wrong. (I also would not be up to rules- breaking to stop a Win. A dictatorship maybe but not just a win). If we *did* go that route, I'd number the CFJs fractionally and list them all under a single whole number, so I wouldn't use CFJs that actually have some interest for anyone.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Yes I was just doing the sums of AP and shinies and realizing same. Well if a non-player wants to take this route I'm game to do the Officing. Will raise an interesting question on what happens if a non-player unequivocally breaks a rule ("A person SHALL NOT initiate an excess case.") On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to call > sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies alone. > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:34 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue > > > illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences > > politicians > > > sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not > > > to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of > > > responsibility. > > > > If some people call a bunch of CFJs (on trivial matters), and others favor > > them, and I assign them and they judge, and I award, can we get sufficient > > judicial favours spread around to counteract, entirely legally? (if we > > don't hit the Excess limit). > > > > Further if judges file Motions after judging and then re-judge, they > > can be awarded twice. If then the group-file option is used with a gang > > of three conspirators, three times. (I'm actually amazed no one has used > > Motions to double their judicial rewards so far, but I guess the rewards > > are low in normal circumstances). > > > > Sorry I haven't worked through the win mechanism to know if this works, I > > just noticed I could award favors for CFJs. > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to > call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies > alone. I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies alone. On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 at 15:34 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue > > illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences > politicians > > sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not > > to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of > > responsibility. > > If some people call a bunch of CFJs (on trivial matters), and others favor > them, and I assign them and they judge, and I award, can we get sufficient > judicial favours spread around to counteract, entirely legally? (if we > don't hit the Excess limit). > > Further if judges file Motions after judging and then re-judge, they > can be awarded twice. If then the group-file option is used with a gang > of three conspirators, three times. (I'm actually amazed no one has used > Motions to double their judicial rewards so far, but I guess the rewards > are low in normal circumstances). > > Sorry I haven't worked through the win mechanism to know if this works, I > just noticed I could award favors for CFJs. > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue > illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians > sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not > to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of > responsibility. If some people call a bunch of CFJs (on trivial matters), and others favor them, and I assign them and they judge, and I award, can we get sufficient judicial favours spread around to counteract, entirely legally? (if we don't hit the Excess limit). Further if judges file Motions after judging and then re-judge, they can be awarded twice. If then the group-file option is used with a gang of three conspirators, three times. (I'm actually amazed no one has used Motions to double their judicial rewards so far, but I guess the rewards are low in normal circumstances). Sorry I haven't worked through the win mechanism to know if this works, I just noticed I could award favors for CFJs.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
No, because e is still interim. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Nov 22, 2017, at 2:21 PM, ATMunn wrote: > > by the way, does the deputisation end the election I initiated? > > On 11/22/2017 2:20 PM, ATMunn wrote: >> RIP VJ Rada. >> I support. >> On 11/22/2017 2:15 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: >>> As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that >>> fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous abuse >>> of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with >>> the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this >>> scam taken from em. >>> >>> As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. As >>> far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, another >>> officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in order to >>> award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from >>> sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing balloons >>> to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of >>> existence by proposal. >>> >>> I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me. >>> Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue >>> illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians >>> sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not >>> to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of >>> responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law, >>> which I am also loathe to do. >>> >>> There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything >>> outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last >>> resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone >>> quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it can >>> be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does not >>> agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach. >>> >>> First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS >>> mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule 2160 >>> is as follows: >>> {{{ >>>A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an >>>action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an >>>office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the >>>office, as long as >>> >>>1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, >>> other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and >>> >>>2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e >>> is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation. >>> >>>Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow >>>special deputisation. >>> >>>A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office, >>>via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true: >>> >>>1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of >>> holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is >>> fulfilled by the deputy performing the action. >>> >>>2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action >>> to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant. >>> >>>3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned >>> time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the >>> deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e >>> intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the >>> particular action. >>> >>>When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected >>>office, e becomes the holder of that office. >>> }}} >>> >>> Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to >>> deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I Point >>> my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this >>> message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this >>> Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans. >>> >>> Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being >>> reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order, >>> issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed in em >>> as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers >>> significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical >>> system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules >>> that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a >>> result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black >>> Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory. >>> >>> Now, t
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
by the way, does the deputisation end the election I initiated? On 11/22/2017 2:20 PM, ATMunn wrote: RIP VJ Rada. I support. On 11/22/2017 2:15 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: As PSS said, the favour award succeeds. There is no requirement that fingers be pointed to award favours. That said, this is an enormous abuse of official power; V.J. Rada has shown emself unfit to be entrusted with the power of an office. Moreover, e deserves to have the profits of this scam taken from em. As e points out, an attainder cannot act fast enough to deny em a win. As far as I can tell, there are three ways to defeat eir scam. First, another officer authorized to issue favours violates the rules as well, in order to award sufficient countervailing favours to prevent V.J. Rada from sufficiently disrupting the game state (in particular by amassing balloons to gain significant voting power). Second, we could ratify it out of existence by proposal. I have strong distate for ratification, so that is a last resort to me. Thus, I think the correct solution here is to have another officer issue illegal favours to a number of people, each of whom influences politicians sufficiently such that V.J. Rada cannot become an advisor, and agrees not to use eir power. Then we pass a proposal absolving the officer of responsibility. This, however, requires more officers to break the law, which I am also loathe to do. There is one alternate approach, however, that avoids doing anything outright illegal. It is incredibly harsh---I'm using it as a last resort---and if we go this route then it should absolutely be undone quickly by proposal, but I'm going to set it in motion now so that it can be finalized in time to prevent V.J. Rada from winning. If Agora does not agree on implementing it, then we can go with the other approach. First off, an error in the FLR (which I will correct afterward). PSS mis-applied the effects of Proposal 7918, so the correct text of Rule 2160 is as follows: {{{ A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the office, as long as 1. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and 2. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation. Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow special deputisation. A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office, via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true: 1. The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is fulfilled by the deputy performing the action. 2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant. 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular action. When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that office. }}} Thus, although the FLR does not indicate this, it is in fact possible to deputise for a vacant office before any time limits have expired. I Point my Finger at myself, alleging that I violated the rules by sending this message (even though I didn't). I deputise for Referee to declare this Finger-Pointing to be Shenanigans. Now that I hold the office of Referee (and preventing it from being reclaimed by someone who can abuse it), I issue a Dive Cabinet Order, issuing a Black Card to V.J. Rada for betraying the good faith placed in em as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory. Now, the above may seem IMPOSSIBLE, as Rule 2507 says that Black Cards cannot be issued to players. However, it does not contain a claim of precedence over other rules in this regard, and Rule 2451 authorizes me to award any card to any player, using Dive. Given the lack of relevant precedence claims in either rule, by Rule 1030, the rule with the lowest ID number prevails. Thus, it is POSSIBLE for me to award a Black Card and the precedence clause in Rule 2451 makes it LEGAL for me to do so. I intend,
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Especially scams on new big systems. In my mind, it points to the age-old problem of watching the watchmen. Every time we have criminal punishments, we either (a) have a cumbersome, process-laden system of justice that drags things out to the point of apathy (e.g. Agoran Consent for pledges). Or (b) we have a Sheriff of some kind that can insta-punish - and that power eventually results in a scam. I'm not sure we've ever gotten the balance right (though a couple of the systems have gotten closer than this one). On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote: > I wouldn't even necessarily call you a "bad player," scams are a part of > Agora. I think just about everyone here has at least tried one to some extent, > some successful, some not. I haven't tried scamming a win (yet!) but I did > scam a free stamp just yesterday. > > On 11/22/2017 1:57 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > > yea don't award me a patent title for being a bad player. only diff > > between me and cuddlebeam is that most of my scams are non-frivolous. > > i mean if i won more than once (i have won once with the "with > > objection" stuff), with stuff like this, maybe. > > > > @aris: nah i'm actually cool w/ everything right now lmao. sorry for > > swearing and stuff, know it's not agoran norm and all that. but yea > > i'm totally fine. > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > > > > I pay V.J. Rada 10 shinies for the clever scam. H. Herald candidates, > > > > would you consider giving out Scamster for this? I don't think e ever > > > > actually won off a scam, but e's come close so many times that e > > > > deserves the accolade. > > > > > > > > > Petard hoister. > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
What e said. On 11/22/17, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > If I am elected Herald, I will attempt to award em the title of Scamster. > > On 11/22/2017 01:07 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: >> I support the intent to call in the pledge; or, if it was invalid, >> intend with Agoran consent to call in the pledge. My basis for doing >> so is that the notorious scamster E.E. Rafa has willfully intended, >> contrived, and conspired (with emself; totally actual conspiracy) to >> abuse eir official powers for personal gain, to defy a pledge of eir >> own making, and to abuse a new game system in a destructive manner >> without regard for the consequences. >> >> I pay V.J. Rada 10 shinies for the clever scam. H. Herald candidates, >> would you consider giving out Scamster for this? I don't think e ever >> actually won off a scam, but e's come close so many times that e >> deserves the accolade. >> >> -Aris >> >> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:52 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >>> Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't >>> received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long. >>> Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go >>> through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE. >>> >>> CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY OUT >>> OF EIR OWN SCAM >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or similar) -- From V.J. Rada >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From V.J. Rada > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
I wouldn't even necessarily call you a "bad player," scams are a part of Agora. I think just about everyone here has at least tried one to some extent, some successful, some not. I haven't tried scamming a win (yet!) but I did scam a free stamp just yesterday. On 11/22/2017 1:57 AM, VJ Rada wrote: yea don't award me a patent title for being a bad player. only diff between me and cuddlebeam is that most of my scams are non-frivolous. i mean if i won more than once (i have won once with the "with objection" stuff), with stuff like this, maybe. @aris: nah i'm actually cool w/ everything right now lmao. sorry for swearing and stuff, know it's not agoran norm and all that. but yea i'm totally fine. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: I pay V.J. Rada 10 shinies for the clever scam. H. Herald candidates, would you consider giving out Scamster for this? I don't think e ever actually won off a scam, but e's come close so many times that e deserves the accolade. Petard hoister. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
If I am elected Herald, I will attempt to award em the title of Scamster. On 11/22/2017 01:07 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > I support the intent to call in the pledge; or, if it was invalid, > intend with Agoran consent to call in the pledge. My basis for doing > so is that the notorious scamster E.E. Rafa has willfully intended, > contrived, and conspired (with emself; totally actual conspiracy) to > abuse eir official powers for personal gain, to defy a pledge of eir > own making, and to abuse a new game system in a destructive manner > without regard for the consequences. > > I pay V.J. Rada 10 shinies for the clever scam. H. Herald candidates, > would you consider giving out Scamster for this? I don't think e ever > actually won off a scam, but e's come close so many times that e > deserves the accolade. > > -Aris > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:52 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >> Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't >> received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long. >> Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go >> through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE. >> >> CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY OUT >> OF EIR OWN SCAM >> >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >>> I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 >>> fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with >>> agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or >>> similar) >>> >>> -- >>> From V.J. Rada >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Where did you point fingers. On 11/22/2017 12:49 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 > fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with > agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or > similar) > -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
I've actually been meaning to ask you this for a while Ørjan, and now seems like a decent time to do so (i don't mean to be rude or w/e obv). What's the story behind your watching of Agora? Because it seems like you were around in like 1993 and have been watching quite actively for several years? I actually don't know the story behind that. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: > >> Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again > > > But it's so fun to watch! > > Greetings, > Ørjan. -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote: Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again But it's so fun to watch! Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
yea don't award me a patent title for being a bad player. only diff between me and cuddlebeam is that most of my scams are non-frivolous. i mean if i won more than once (i have won once with the "with objection" stuff), with stuff like this, maybe. @aris: nah i'm actually cool w/ everything right now lmao. sorry for swearing and stuff, know it's not agoran norm and all that. but yea i'm totally fine. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> I pay V.J. Rada 10 shinies for the clever scam. H. Herald candidates, >> would you consider giving out Scamster for this? I don't think e ever >> actually won off a scam, but e's come close so many times that e >> deserves the accolade. > > > Petard hoister. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: I pay V.J. Rada 10 shinies for the clever scam. H. Herald candidates, would you consider giving out Scamster for this? I don't think e ever actually won off a scam, but e's come close so many times that e deserves the accolade. Petard hoister. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
(I should probably stop being a jerk, sorry) On 2017-11-22 17:28, Madeline wrote: Well you're not the referee anymore :3 On 2017-11-22 17:24, VJ Rada wrote: I'm the referee, that would be illegal, I could card y'all etc. obviously the correct play would have been to do this JUST before the beginning of an agoran week. but the message seemingly STILL hasn't sent, so that would have been hard. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Madeline wrote: In addition, any other favour-granting officer (such as me) could do EXACTLY the same thing to stop you from becoming the advisor of anyone. On 2017-11-22 17:04, VJ Rada wrote: Expedition is still 7 day voting period! Balloons automatically are created at the beginning of each agoran week (next monday). So it would have worked. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Madeline wrote: For the record, it wouldn't have worked. None of favours, influence, or advising are secured, and with the power of expedition we could get the proposal through before you won on balloons. On 2017-11-22 16:58, VJ Rada wrote: i'm s pissed that i lost the easiest win in the history of easy wins because of emails. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, VJ Rada wrote: i mean yeah ok. not exactly standing for re-election here. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Madeline wrote: Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote: Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long. Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE. CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY OUT OF EIR OWN SCAM On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or similar) -- From V.J. Rada -- From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
Well you're not the referee anymore :3 On 2017-11-22 17:24, VJ Rada wrote: I'm the referee, that would be illegal, I could card y'all etc. obviously the correct play would have been to do this JUST before the beginning of an agoran week. but the message seemingly STILL hasn't sent, so that would have been hard. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Madeline wrote: In addition, any other favour-granting officer (such as me) could do EXACTLY the same thing to stop you from becoming the advisor of anyone. On 2017-11-22 17:04, VJ Rada wrote: Expedition is still 7 day voting period! Balloons automatically are created at the beginning of each agoran week (next monday). So it would have worked. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Madeline wrote: For the record, it wouldn't have worked. None of favours, influence, or advising are secured, and with the power of expedition we could get the proposal through before you won on balloons. On 2017-11-22 16:58, VJ Rada wrote: i'm s pissed that i lost the easiest win in the history of easy wins because of emails. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, VJ Rada wrote: i mean yeah ok. not exactly standing for re-election here. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Madeline wrote: Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote: Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long. Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE. CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY OUT OF EIR OWN SCAM On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or similar) -- From V.J. Rada -- From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
It got caught in the scam filter. The Distributior and the Spirit of the Game willing it may arrive. Someday. -Aris On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:24 PM VJ Rada wrote: > I'm the referee, that would be illegal, I could card y'all etc. > > obviously the correct play would have been to do this JUST before the > beginning of an agoran week. but the message seemingly STILL hasn't > sent, so that would have been hard. > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Madeline wrote: > > In addition, any other favour-granting officer (such as me) could do > EXACTLY > > the same thing to stop you from becoming the advisor of anyone. > > > > > > > > On 2017-11-22 17:04, VJ Rada wrote: > >> > >> Expedition is still 7 day voting period! Balloons automatically are > >> created at the beginning of each agoran week (next monday). So it > >> would have worked. > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Madeline wrote: > >>> > >>> For the record, it wouldn't have worked. None of favours, influence, or > >>> advising are secured, and with the power of expedition we could get the > >>> proposal through before you won on balloons. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2017-11-22 16:58, VJ Rada wrote: > > i'm s pissed that i lost the easiest win in the history of > easy wins because of emails. > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > > > i mean yeah ok. not exactly standing for re-election here. > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Madeline wrote: > >> > >> Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote: > >>> > >>> Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't > >>> received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very > long. > >>> Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go > >>> through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE. > >>> > >>> CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY > >>> OUT > >>> OF EIR OWN SCAM > >>> > >>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada > wrote: > > I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing > 3,000 > fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with > agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or > similar) > > -- > From V.J. Rada > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge
you know what else? you know what the hell else? this is one day before i would have got a green ribbon for referee. ugh. most of my horrible scam attempts are come up with on my really boring busride home, maybe i should take up drawing or something. On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:24 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > I'm the referee, that would be illegal, I could card y'all etc. > > obviously the correct play would have been to do this JUST before the > beginning of an agoran week. but the message seemingly STILL hasn't > sent, so that would have been hard. > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Madeline wrote: >> In addition, any other favour-granting officer (such as me) could do EXACTLY >> the same thing to stop you from becoming the advisor of anyone. >> >> >> >> On 2017-11-22 17:04, VJ Rada wrote: >>> >>> Expedition is still 7 day voting period! Balloons automatically are >>> created at the beginning of each agoran week (next monday). So it >>> would have worked. >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Madeline wrote: For the record, it wouldn't have worked. None of favours, influence, or advising are secured, and with the power of expedition we could get the proposal through before you won on balloons. On 2017-11-22 16:58, VJ Rada wrote: > > i'm s pissed that i lost the easiest win in the history of > easy wins because of emails. > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> i mean yeah ok. not exactly standing for re-election here. >> >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Madeline wrote: >>> >>> Can we just never give you any in-game power ever again >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2017-11-22 16:52, VJ Rada wrote: Ah... the favours don't work because it looks like agora hasn't received the message causing them yet. No surprise, it's _very long. Unfortunately, I can't award them again when the message DOES go through because I'M NOT THE FUCKING REFEREE. CLAAASSIC RADA LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. RESIGNING EIR WAY OUT OF EIR OWN SCAM On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > > I award myself 3,000 justice favours for successfully pointing 3,000 > fingers. I resign as referee. I intend to call in the pledge, with > agoran consent, that states "I pledge to not point fingers" (or > similar) > > -- >From V.J. Rada >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada > > > >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada