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

[Owen Jacobson]

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

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

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

[Owen Jacobson]

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

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

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

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

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




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

[Alex Smith]

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

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

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

-- 
ais523

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

[grok (caleb vines)]

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

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

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

-Aris


I Support this motion.

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:


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

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


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


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


Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[Alex Smith]

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

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

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

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

-- 
ais523

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

[grok (caleb vines)]

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

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


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


-grok

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

[V.J Rada]

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

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

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

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

[Kerim Aydin]

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

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

I was pretty obnoxious back then.


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

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

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

[Josh T]

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

天火狐

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

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

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

[grok (caleb vines)]

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


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

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

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

[Josh T]

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

天火狐

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

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

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

[Cuddle Beam]

Sure, all yours.

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

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

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

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

[Cuddle Beam]

Exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nicholas Evans]

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

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

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

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

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

I submit the above as gratuitous arguments.



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

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

[Cuddle Beam]

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

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

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

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

[Cuddle Beam]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nicholas Evans]

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

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

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

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

Again, this is pretty obscure/abstract though.


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


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

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

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

[Cuddle Beam]

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

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

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

Again, this is pretty obscure/abstract though.

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

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

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

[Nicholas Evans]

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

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

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

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

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

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


>>
>

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

[Alex Smith]

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

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

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

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

-- 
ais523

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

[Cuddle Beam]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 --
 ais523

>>>
>>>
>

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

[grok (caleb vines)]

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

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


-grok

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

[Cuddle Beam]

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

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

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

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

[Nicholas Evans]

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

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

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

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

[Nicholas Evans]

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

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

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