Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

Sorry, yes, I think I misinterpreted something you did with the Organization as 
being a pledge.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2017, Josh T wrote:
> Re: Japanese pledge: Given that I don't recall having made a pledge in 
> Japanese, I haven't the foggiest what it might refer
> to. 
> Re: Japanese Organization: Yeah, no, that's what I expected of it. I have a 
> long philosophical experiment, I swear. 
> 
> 天火狐
> 
> On 20 July 2017 at 23:58, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
>   On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
>   > o, you seem to have accepted that a pledge in Japanese, of very 
> limited
>   > comprehension to me, and with limited enforceability due to 
> translation issues
>   > (even with the translator) is still some kind of publicly-made 
> pledge.  Why does
>   > this case differ to you?
> 
>   Can you point out where I did so? I’m having difficulty finding it. It 
> does sound like a thing I’d do, but I had
>   not fully understood the implications of CFJ 1460 until after your 
> Cygneus Cantus, so if it was prior to that, I
>   plead ignorance by default.
> 
>   -o
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Josh T]

Re: Japanese pledge: Given that I don't recall having made a pledge in
Japanese, I haven't the foggiest what it might refer to.

Re: Japanese Organization: Yeah, no, that's what I expected of it. I have a
long philosophical experiment, I swear.

天火狐

On 20 July 2017 at 23:58, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
> > o, you seem to have accepted that a pledge in Japanese, of very limited
> > comprehension to me, and with limited enforceability due to translation
> issues
> > (even with the translator) is still some kind of publicly-made pledge.
> Why does
> > this case differ to you?
>
> Can you point out where I did so? I’m having difficulty finding it. It
> does sound like a thing I’d do, but I had not fully understood the
> implications of CFJ 1460 until after your Cygneus Cantus, so if it was
> prior to that, I plead ignorance by default.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Owen Jacobson]

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

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

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

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Nic Evans]

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


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



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Josh T]

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

天火狐

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

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

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

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

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

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

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

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

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


Anyway,on the "public challenge" side:

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

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

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


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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

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

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

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

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[grok (caleb vines)]

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


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


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

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

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

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

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

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

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

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

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

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

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


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

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[grok (caleb vines)]

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

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

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

-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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

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



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



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

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

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

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

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

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

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

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


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

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

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

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

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

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

yay, merit for me! ty.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

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

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

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

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

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

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

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

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

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

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

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

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

Sent.

...Now I brace myself.

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

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

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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

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



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



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

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

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

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

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

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Alex Smith]

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

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

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

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[V.J Rada]

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

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

However, yeah.

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

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

* in front of that 'Judge'

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

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

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

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

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

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

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

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

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jul 20, 2017, at 12:06 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> My disagreement with o here is that I don't believe that G. has pledged
>> to perform any /specific/ action; e's simply pledged to perform /some/
>> action that meets the given description. If a player hypothetically
>> pledged to transfer 5 shinies to "some player", we'd accept that as a
>> valid pledge even though there's no way to determine which player would
>> gain the shinies until it happens (and indeed, the pledgor may well not
>> have made eir mind up at the point e makes the pledge). In this
>> particular situation, it's probable that G. had some specific document
>> in mind, but the pledge would work equally well even if e didn't.
> 
> Gratuitous:
> 
> 1.  At the option of the judge, I will send em a document (hereafter "the
> Original") that meets the description in my pledge, which plainly and
> clearly specifies that I was required to perform a regulated Agoran action.
> (I'll leave it up to the judge whether to publish it).
> 
> 2.  I thought about saying that I would pledge to obey *every* document
> meeting that description (narrowing that possible window at least a bit
> was why I specified character length).  In the end I didn't.
> 
> If I had, most such documents would be nonsense and IRRELEVANT.  If I
> broke the Original, that would be enough to "convict" me, so any others
> wouldn't matter.  If I obeyed the Original, there would still be some very
> low but nonzero chance (unknowable to me or anyone else) that I was still
> guilty, if some other document existed that is an intelligible proscription
> with the same hash and length.  But I'd argue that the odds are so low
> that it is below any standard of evidence to assume its existence.
> 
> If the judge wants to consider whether simple permutations of the
> grammar (like the use of "every") would make this general idea work
> that would be great.

We have here an extremely unusual relationship between the CFJ system and the 
Referee system. In this case, the CFJ system can find fact - but cannot impose 
punishment, while the Referee system can impose punishment, but cannot find 
fact. To my knowledge, there are no similarly bicameral judiciaries anywhere 
else.

There are, certainly, plenty of appeals courts - and up until now, the CFJ 
system has served, at least in my mind, as the court of appeals for Referee 
decisions. There are certainly plenty of trial courts, and both the CFJ system 
(which can establish precedent) and the Referee system (which can’t) somewhat 
fit that niche. However, I can’t think of anywhere where a trial court might 
defer to another trial court for sentencing, or where an appeals court would 
make a finding of law _before_ a sentence has been handed down by a trial court.

This is fascinating. Thank you.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

In my view, it is always accepted if it is a greater player (remember, not
decoration) and/or is not actively spam.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 16:20 Cuddle Beam  wrote:

>  Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know they're
> someone skilled in doing it.  -> *Anyone else skillful enough could
> create that value, even if we don't know they're someone with that skill.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's also what I dislike lol."Content of the game action" thing.
>> If someone entirely anonymous posted Kerim's action and I consider it
>> interesting (even better if others consider it interesting), I'd contribute
>> with my fraction to "game custom" with that I consider that it should be
>> "acceptable". Whether Kerim posted it or not makes me more prone to
>> actually reading it or not, but not more or less "acceptable" in my view.
>>
>> If someone who has engaged a lot posts something obnoxious, should it be
>> "game customary" to accept it because they're someone who has engaged?
>> If someone out of the total blue posts something that is actually
>> interesting, should it be "game customary" to not accept it because they're
>> someone who hasn't engaged?
>>
>> Basically, Kerim's contributions have value because Kerim is someone
>> skillful in creating value and happened to decide to create that value, not
>> because Kerim is that person we know to be Kerim. That's useful for
>> presumptions, but not for actual conclusions about the value of the content
>> itself imo. Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know
>> they're someone skilled in doing it.
>>
>> But the consequences of me believing that and you that other might
>> actually never result in anything too different between us in practice and
>> I believe we'll act similarly anyway despite different basis so meh I
>> shouldn't argue more lol.
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

 Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know they're someone
skilled in doing it.  -> *Anyone else skillful enough could create that
value, even if we don't know they're someone with that skill.


On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Yes, that's also what I dislike lol."Content of the game action" thing. If
> someone entirely anonymous posted Kerim's action and I consider it
> interesting (even better if others consider it interesting), I'd contribute
> with my fraction to "game custom" with that I consider that it should be
> "acceptable". Whether Kerim posted it or not makes me more prone to
> actually reading it or not, but not more or less "acceptable" in my view.
>
> If someone who has engaged a lot posts something obnoxious, should it be
> "game customary" to accept it because they're someone who has engaged?
> If someone out of the total blue posts something that is actually
> interesting, should it be "game customary" to not accept it because they're
> someone who hasn't engaged?
>
> Basically, Kerim's contributions have value because Kerim is someone
> skillful in creating value and happened to decide to create that value, not
> because Kerim is that person we know to be Kerim. That's useful for
> presumptions, but not for actual conclusions about the value of the content
> itself imo. Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know
> they're someone skilled in doing it.
>
> But the consequences of me believing that and you that other might
> actually never result in anything too different between us in practice and
> I believe we'll act similarly anyway despite different basis so meh I
> shouldn't argue more lol.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

Yes, that's also what I dislike lol."Content of the game action" thing. If
someone entirely anonymous posted Kerim's action and I consider it
interesting (even better if others consider it interesting), I'd contribute
with my fraction to "game custom" with that I consider that it should be
"acceptable". Whether Kerim posted it or not makes me more prone to
actually reading it or not, but not more or less "acceptable" in my view.

If someone who has engaged a lot posts something obnoxious, should it be
"game customary" to accept it because they're someone who has engaged?
If someone out of the total blue posts something that is actually
interesting, should it be "game customary" to not accept it because they're
someone who hasn't engaged?

Basically, Kerim's contributions have value because Kerim is someone
skillful in creating value and happened to decide to create that value, not
because Kerim is that person we know to be Kerim. That's useful for
presumptions, but not for actual conclusions about the value of the content
itself imo. Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know
they're someone skilled in doing it.

But the consequences of me believing that and you that other might actually
never result in anything too different between us in practice and I believe
we'll act similarly anyway despite different basis so meh I shouldn't argue
more lol.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> For me, if Kerim (or anyone else) can contribute with CFJs which are 
> fruitful, 
> then game custom should accept it regardless of prior titles/merits (those 
> being 
> relevant, but just for an individual personal pre-scanning process). The 
> content 
> of the CFJ/game action should merit it being game custom acceptable or not, 
> not who 
> did it. In my opinion.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
>   I would argue that non-players who are greater players are given that 
> right by game custom.


It's not just game custom, it's an explicit right for all persons due to R217:

  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that
  would (1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to
  resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation
  that the controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a
  person from causing formal reconsideration of any judicial
  determination that e should be punished, is wholly void and
  without effect.

The primary justification for allowing non-players to CFJ is, if they couldn't, 
it would be possible to silence people by deregistering them (there have been
deregistration scams in the past).  This could also apply to brand-new players
whose registration method is questionable.

We also keep it completely open is that non-player CFJs have never been much of
an added burden from anyone (regardless of "decoration"), and saying 
"non-players
can only CFJ on their playerhood" would add a layer of meta-CFJs I'm sure.  And
as long as it's not a burden, it feels good to have it written in as a right.

If it becomes a burden ever, the easiest solution would be to allow the Arbitor
the option to refuse or not refuse any non-player case the way e can refuse
excess cases.  This doesn't break the R217 right, necessarily, as it would be
part of the "formal process".  But it might break the right if it were abused
(as there would be no "reasonable expectation" of resolution), so the more you
allow such expedition, the more you need a Justiciar or other method as backup.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

That isn't what I meant by "greater players". I meant greater players in a
sense of including watchers and others who engage or have engaged.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 15:45 Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I agree with that it's great to have Kerim add CFJs but I massively
> dislike that "greater players" argument for it.
>
> If anyone else much decorated than Kerim posted Kerim's CFJs in the same
> way, would that be wrong?
>
> For me, if Kerim (or anyone else) can contribute with CFJs which are
> fruitful, then game custom should accept it regardless of prior
> titles/merits (those being relevant, but just for an individual personal
> pre-scanning process). The content of the CFJ/game action should merit it
> being game custom acceptable or not, not who did it. In my opinion.
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would argue that non-players who are greater players are given that
>> right by game custom.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 15:28 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>> > Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and
>>> then
>>> > a non-player with the help of the arbitor could have no limit on CFJs
>>> as
>>> > the SHALL NOT does not apply to them.
>>>
>>> I shall try to contain the heady rush of power that this gives me.
>>>
>>> On a serious note, a small point worth noting is that while some "rights"
>>> apply to all persons, non-players are explicitly excluded from the right
>>> of
>>> participation in the fora (R478).  This is a conscious nod to the need
>>> for
>>> spam filters, but it also means that the ultimate punishment of forum-
>>> banning is available at need.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

I agree with that it's great to have Kerim add CFJs but I massively dislike
that "greater players" argument for it.

If anyone else much decorated than Kerim posted Kerim's CFJs in the same
way, would that be wrong?

For me, if Kerim (or anyone else) can contribute with CFJs which are
fruitful, then game custom should accept it regardless of prior
titles/merits (those being relevant, but just for an individual personal
pre-scanning process). The content of the CFJ/game action should merit it
being game custom acceptable or not, not who did it. In my opinion.

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would argue that non-players who are greater players are given that
> right by game custom.
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 15:28 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> > Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and
>> then
>> > a non-player with the help of the arbitor could have no limit on CFJs as
>> > the SHALL NOT does not apply to them.
>>
>> I shall try to contain the heady rush of power that this gives me.
>>
>> On a serious note, a small point worth noting is that while some "rights"
>> apply to all persons, non-players are explicitly excluded from the right
>> of
>> participation in the fora (R478).  This is a conscious nod to the need for
>> spam filters, but it also means that the ultimate punishment of forum-
>> banning is available at need.
>>
>>
>>
>>

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

I present the following as a gratuitous argument to that CFJ, which is 16
characters in length and with the following SHA-1 hash:

- 585b7880ef0394acb586274ba623ecd0232fbdc2

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in
> length with the following SHA-1 hash:
>   0ed8c48c11070dfa911ff4b6e465a999cc7cc4a1
>
>
>
> I call the following CFJ:
>   The message quoted in Evidence has created a publicly-made pledge.
>
>
> Arguments
>
> I'm wondering the extent to which the current pledge mechanism can be
> used to form private but enforceable contracts.  Do the full details of
> the pledge need to be known for it to be "public"?  Or is it enough to
> make a public announcement that a pledge has been made?
>
> Obviously, no punishment can be applied unless the text becomes known to
> the Referee or other carding authority.  It would be great if the judge
> could explore different possibilities; e.g. what happens if the plaintext
> becomes known to the Referee?  What if the plaintext is made public after
> the fact, by someone alleging the pledge has been broken?
>
> I'm not a player, but if there's a difference between the player and non-
> player case, hopefully the judge can also opine on the differences and say
> what would happen if the above pledge were made by a player.  (Obviously
> non-players can't be punished as the rule is written, but there's nothing
> to say they can't make pledges).
>
>
> Evidence
>
> > I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in
> > length with the following SHA-1 hash:
> >   0ed8c48c11070dfa911ff4b6e465a999cc7cc4a1
>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I would argue that non-players who are greater players are given that right
by game custom.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 15:28 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and
> then
> > a non-player with the help of the arbitor could have no limit on CFJs as
> > the SHALL NOT does not apply to them.
>
> I shall try to contain the heady rush of power that this gives me.
>
> On a serious note, a small point worth noting is that while some "rights"
> apply to all persons, non-players are explicitly excluded from the right of
> participation in the fora (R478).  This is a conscious nod to the need for
> spam filters, but it also means that the ultimate punishment of forum-
> banning is available at need.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and then
> a non-player with the help of the arbitor could have no limit on CFJs as
> the SHALL NOT does not apply to them.

I shall try to contain the heady rush of power that this gives me.

On a serious note, a small point worth noting is that while some "rights"
apply to all persons, non-players are explicitly excluded from the right of
participation in the fora (R478).  This is a conscious nod to the need for
spam filters, but it also means that the ultimate punishment of forum-
banning is available at need.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and then a 
non-player with the help of the arbitor could have no limit on CFJs as the 
SHALL NOT does not apply to them.

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



> On Jul 18, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> I favor this CFJ.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in
>> length with the following SHA-1 hash:
>> 0ed8c48c11070dfa911ff4b6e465a999cc7cc4a1
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I call the following CFJ:
>> The message quoted in Evidence has created a publicly-made pledge.
>> 
>> 
>> Arguments
>> 
>> I'm wondering the extent to which the current pledge mechanism can be
>> used to form private but enforceable contracts.  Do the full details of
>> the pledge need to be known for it to be "public"?  Or is it enough to
>> make a public announcement that a pledge has been made?
>> 
>> Obviously, no punishment can be applied unless the text becomes known to
>> the Referee or other carding authority.  It would be great if the judge
>> could explore different possibilities; e.g. what happens if the plaintext
>> becomes known to the Referee?  What if the plaintext is made public after
>> the fact, by someone alleging the pledge has been broken?
>> 
>> I'm not a player, but if there's a difference between the player and non-
>> player case, hopefully the judge can also opine on the differences and say
>> what would happen if the above pledge were made by a player.  (Obviously
>> non-players can't be punished as the rule is written, but there's nothing
>> to say they can't make pledges).
>> 
>> 
>> Evidence
>> 
>>> I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in
>>> length with the following SHA-1 hash:
>>> 0ed8c48c11070dfa911ff4b6e465a999cc7cc4a1
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I favor this CFJ.

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



> On Jul 18, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in
> length with the following SHA-1 hash:
>  0ed8c48c11070dfa911ff4b6e465a999cc7cc4a1
> 
> 
> 
> I call the following CFJ:
>  The message quoted in Evidence has created a publicly-made pledge.
> 
> 
> Arguments
> 
> I'm wondering the extent to which the current pledge mechanism can be
> used to form private but enforceable contracts.  Do the full details of
> the pledge need to be known for it to be "public"?  Or is it enough to
> make a public announcement that a pledge has been made?
> 
> Obviously, no punishment can be applied unless the text becomes known to
> the Referee or other carding authority.  It would be great if the judge
> could explore different possibilities; e.g. what happens if the plaintext
> becomes known to the Referee?  What if the plaintext is made public after
> the fact, by someone alleging the pledge has been broken?
> 
> I'm not a player, but if there's a difference between the player and non-
> player case, hopefully the judge can also opine on the differences and say
> what would happen if the above pledge were made by a player.  (Obviously
> non-players can't be punished as the rule is written, but there's nothing
> to say they can't make pledges).
> 
> 
> Evidence
> 
>> I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in
>> length with the following SHA-1 hash:
>>  0ed8c48c11070dfa911ff4b6e465a999cc7cc4a1
> 
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail