Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
2009/9/20 ais523 : > It's not a typo, I did it that way deliberately back in May. This scam > had been prepared for a /very/ long time... I don't like the flavour of this scam one bit.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote: > The important point behind giving notice is that it allows someone to > react. The relevant point about the Points Party was that I planned to > change the contract; and the contract allows parties to respond to a > planned change by leaving the contract. The method by which I change the > contract is surely irrelevant in this. (Going back to your Buffalo band > example, suppose you'd said you were taking your wife, but instead > arrived without. As far as I can tell, that would have no effect > whatsoever on the city's duty to provide you with a brass band, just as > the mechanism of the change to the contract is completely irrelevant as > far as a warning that it might change is involved, whereas, for > instance, the text of the change /is/ relevant, and it would have failed > had I tried to change the contract to an entirely different text.) I agree with everything you've said except "surely irrelevant". The issue is that there's no agreement on what information is in fact relevant. Since you use a generally common definition of notice (not a strict rules- specified one), what constitutes notice may rely on common expectations of a "typical" contest member in context. For that, it may be judged that a misleading message on the intended method is indeed relevant (that's the double-edged sword of using a common definition instead of a strict rules definition - it opens the door to more context). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 20:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote: > >> I still don't think I'm incorrect. Giving notice that I plan to do > >> something via means X is still giving notice that I plan to do it; it's > >> a logical implication. See also CFJ 2624, which also found that an > >> intent to do something via an incorrect means was still an intent. > > Actually let me leave this with a "legal" example using common > definitions: > > Contract: The City of Buffalo hereby agrees that, provided G. gives > 24 hours or more notice of eir arrival, e shall be met with a brass > band. > > G. message to Buffalo: I intend to arrive seven days from now, by > train. > > G. (25 hours later): I've just arrived on a bus and there's no band; > Buffalo is in breach of contract. > > Judge: G., by specifying a misleading time and method of arrival, > did not in fact give the required notice. The contract clearly does > not require Buffalo to monitor all ports of entry 24/7 to guard > against the possibility that a misleading notice was received. Hmm... I think the time and method here are fundamentally different. Take the example of G. stating that e intends to arrive 7 days from then, by train; and instead arrives 7 days later by bus. In this case, the expected behaviour of Buffalo (getting a brass band ready for 7 days later) is the same; the brass band may well turn up at the wrong place within the town without breaching the contract, but it would be violating the contract to not prepare one for then at all. The important point behind giving notice is that it allows someone to react. The relevant point about the Points Party was that I planned to change the contract; and the contract allows parties to respond to a planned change by leaving the contract. The method by which I change the contract is surely irrelevant in this. (Going back to your Buffalo band example, suppose you'd said you were taking your wife, but instead arrived without. As far as I can tell, that would have no effect whatsoever on the city's duty to provide you with a brass band, just as the mechanism of the change to the contract is completely irrelevant as far as a warning that it might change is involved, whereas, for instance, the text of the change /is/ relevant, and it would have failed had I tried to change the contract to an entirely different text.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote: I still don't think I'm incorrect. Giving notice that I plan to do something via means X is still giving notice that I plan to do it; it's a logical implication. See also CFJ 2624, which also found that an intent to do something via an incorrect means was still an intent. Actually let me leave this with a "legal" example using common definitions: Contract: The City of Buffalo hereby agrees that, provided G. gives 24 hours or more notice of eir arrival, e shall be met with a brass band. G. message to Buffalo: I intend to arrive seven days from now, by train. G. (25 hours later): I've just arrived on a bus and there's no band; Buffalo is in breach of contract. Judge: G., by specifying a misleading time and method of arrival, did not in fact give the required notice. The contract clearly does not require Buffalo to monitor all ports of entry 24/7 to guard against the possibility that a misleading notice was received. -G. Can you register so I can transfer you a prop for this analogy? :P -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote: >> I still don't think I'm incorrect. Giving notice that I plan to do >> something via means X is still giving notice that I plan to do it; it's >> a logical implication. See also CFJ 2624, which also found that an >> intent to do something via an incorrect means was still an intent. Actually let me leave this with a "legal" example using common definitions: Contract: The City of Buffalo hereby agrees that, provided G. gives 24 hours or more notice of eir arrival, e shall be met with a brass band. G. message to Buffalo: I intend to arrive seven days from now, by train. G. (25 hours later): I've just arrived on a bus and there's no band; Buffalo is in breach of contract. Judge: G., by specifying a misleading time and method of arrival, did not in fact give the required notice. The contract clearly does not require Buffalo to monitor all ports of entry 24/7 to guard against the possibility that a misleading notice was received. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote: > On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 16:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Now if you had said "I intend to... by any means" or left the means >> blank, it would have covered it, but not qualified as a dependent >> action intent. If you had said "w/o objection or another means" then >> it would have worked, but it would have signaled your scam so you >> chose not to do so. > > I still don't think I'm incorrect. Giving notice that I plan to do > something via means X is still giving notice that I plan to do it; it's > a logical implication. See also CFJ 2624, which also found that an > intent to do something via an incorrect means was still an intent. Another example, if I say "I intend to visit your house next week" and then show up tomorrow, you would (quite rightly) claim that I didn't do what I'd given notice that I'd do, even though I might say "but I said I'd show up!" and it might be logically accurate. But if a judge were asked "did I give adequate notice of my intent?" e would almost certainly say no (all this is under "common definitions" of the various terms). But I do understand your position. I was pointing out examples where, in principle, giving misleading details of the method could obscure the underlying act of giving notice to the point that it wasn't an accurate notice. A judge should opine on whether the actual case was "misleading enough" to make the notice altogether ineffective (given your claim that you put this phrasing in the contract ages ago in careful preparation, I will readily admit that the details of the contract which I haven't examined might support you - that's the judge's call). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 20, 2009, at 5:37 PM, ais523 wrote: As for your two-possibilities argument; giving notice that there's a possibility that something might happen is still notice. There are two possibilities; but if either leads to something happening, the notice is there. After all, it isn't the case that every dependent action intent in Agora is resolved; so if I intend to do something, there are two possibilities: (1) that I resolve it, (2) that I don't. It's ambiguous. Therefore, by your argument, there isn't notice there? Your reasoning seems rather spurious here. You specifically gave notice that you would do it without 3 objections (or without objection, etc.). I believe that "I intend, without objection, to do X", when evaluated as a statement, means one of: a) "I plan that, if I don't get an objection, I will do X in 4-14 days." b) "I plan that, in 4-14 days, I will do X without objection." [implying, I don't plan to receive objections] In case a), after an objection is posted, the statement becomes a tautology. In case b), after an objection is posted the plan becomes impossible to execute and is invalid. If I'm given notice that I'll be kicked off a train for not having a ticket, then show my ticket, I wouldn't expect to be kicked off the train anyway. Either way, the statement says nothing about your plans knowing there's an objection. Notice is, after all, inherently a warning, and I wasn't warned that you were going to amend the contract other than without X objections. Given the warning I had, I could have retracted my objections, gone to bed, and felt confident that the scam couldn't be pulled off for 24 hours. Had I been warned without a method being specified, I wouldn't be so sure.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 09:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > > For each public contract that I am a party to, I leave it. > > The standards on communicating conditional actions are getting > ridiculous. I'm tempted to post "I perform all the actions I CAN, > in the order that maximizes the number of things I can do". Someone tried something similar to that in B a while ago. I can't remember what happened. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 16:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 13:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> If I say "I intend to take the train to Buffalo" I have not made any > >> implication, announcement of intent, nor given any notice whatsoever > >> on whether I might intend to drive a car to Buffalo should the train > >> get stuck in the snow. > > > > But I have given notice that I intend to travel to Buffalo. And that's > > all that the contract required, in this analogy. > > Absolutely incorrect. If you give notice that you will travel by a > specific method, there are two possibilities: (1) if the method doesn't > work, you will travel by another method or (2) if the method doesn't > work, you will not travel at all. It's ambiguous. You have *not* > given notice of intent to perform the action separated from the method. > > Now if you had said "I intend to... by any means" or left the means > blank, it would have covered it, but not qualified as a dependent > action intent. If you had said "w/o objection or another means" then > it would have worked, but it would have signaled your scam so you > chose not to do so. I still don't think I'm incorrect. Giving notice that I plan to do something via means X is still giving notice that I plan to do it; it's a logical implication. See also CFJ 2624, which also found that an intent to do something via an incorrect means was still an intent. As for your two-possibilities argument; giving notice that there's a possibility that something might happen is still notice. There are two possibilities; but if either leads to something happening, the notice is there. After all, it isn't the case that every dependent action intent in Agora is resolved; so if I intend to do something, there are two possibilities: (1) that I resolve it, (2) that I don't. It's ambiguous. Therefore, by your argument, there isn't notice there? Your reasoning seems rather spurious here. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 00:59 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2009/9/19 ais523 :
> > Points Party requires "4 days notice" for me to be able to amend it (not
> > With Notice, but rather the ordinary-language sense); I gave the notice,
> > and here's the amendment. As there have now been 4 days of notice (that
> > I intended to amend Points Party), I hereby amend Points Party to the
> > text shown within the {{{ }}} marks in the quote above.
>
> And I thought this was actual rules brokenness.
>
> Sickening to use such a simple typo to control lots of innocent people.
It's not a typo, I did it that way deliberately back in May. This scam
had been prepared for a /very/ long time...
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
2009/9/20 comex : > This. If you give notice that you intend to travel to Buffalo by car, > and you can't get your car out of the driveway, I'm not going to wait > at the train station. I would. How else am I going to see Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote: >> On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 13:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> If I say "I intend to take the train to Buffalo" I have not made any >>> implication, announcement of intent, nor given any notice whatsoever >>> on whether I might intend to drive a car to Buffalo should the train >>> get stuck in the snow. >> >> But I have given notice that I intend to travel to Buffalo. And that's >> all that the contract required, in this analogy. > > Absolutely incorrect. If you give notice that you will travel by a > specific method, there are two possibilities: (1) if the method doesn't > work, you will travel by another method or (2) if the method doesn't > work, you will not travel at all. It's ambiguous. You have *not* > given notice of intent to perform the action separated from the method. This. If you give notice that you intend to travel to Buffalo by car, and you can't get your car out of the driveway, I'm not going to wait at the train station. -- -c.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, comex wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> And yes I meant to use the "G. is a player" precedent for this; a kibitzer >> can still be an anti-scammer, c. :) :) > > Nice. Did you predict he would do something like that? > Can't claim to have predicted specifics; thought e might be trying to play with ambiguity between dependent action methods/intents. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote: > On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 13:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> If I say "I intend to take the train to Buffalo" I have not made any >> implication, announcement of intent, nor given any notice whatsoever >> on whether I might intend to drive a car to Buffalo should the train >> get stuck in the snow. > > But I have given notice that I intend to travel to Buffalo. And that's > all that the contract required, in this analogy. Absolutely incorrect. If you give notice that you will travel by a specific method, there are two possibilities: (1) if the method doesn't work, you will travel by another method or (2) if the method doesn't work, you will not travel at all. It's ambiguous. You have *not* given notice of intent to perform the action separated from the method. Now if you had said "I intend to... by any means" or left the means blank, it would have covered it, but not qualified as a dependent action intent. If you had said "w/o objection or another means" then it would have worked, but it would have signaled your scam so you chose not to do so. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
ais523 wrote: > Arguments: With Notice didn't exist when the Points Party was created. > See also the endless precedents about the First Speaker, and the strong > implication of rule 1586; that using a rules-undefined term in a way > that clearly indicates that it isn't meant to be a term in the rules > doesn't cause it to become a use of a rules-defined term if a term > that's vaguely similar is later defined in the rules. (Besides, nothing > prevents the action taking place /even if/ it's defined to mean "With > Notice", simply because although it can't be done dependently, the > natural-language definition allows the action to be done independently. > This is possibly a bug in the dependent action rules.) Counterarguments: Rule 104 is Power 3, and also depends on the scope of "First" (which the rules defining the current Speaker never explicitly attempted to re-define). Rule 1586 clearly prevents hijacking of references to entities by name, but does not clearly extend to procedures. And it's only Power 2. If the contract-defined method counts as With Notice, then Rule 2125(c) prevents it from being used independently.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 13:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > If I say "I intend to take the train to Buffalo" I have not made any > implication, announcement of intent, nor given any notice whatsoever > on whether I might intend to drive a car to Buffalo should the train > get stuck in the snow. But I have given notice that I intend to travel to Buffalo. And that's all that the contract required, in this analogy. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, ais523 wrote: > On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 08:51 -0400, comex wrote: >> No you didn't, because (a) your "notice" clearly stated that you >> intended to amend without objections, and couldn't possibly have >> qualified as notice that you would do so via another mechanism > > Note that my change to Points Party was /not/ a dependent action. It was > simply a change per R2198(c); the contract stated that if I'd given 4 > days notice, then I could make the change. I had given the notice, > therefore I could make the change. R1728 is completely irrelevant here, > because no dependent action was involved. (This part of the scam largely > consisted of convincing everyone that dependent actions /were/ relevant, > to cause them to miss the real scam.) If I say "I intend to take the train to Buffalo" I have not made any implication, announcement of intent, nor given any notice whatsoever on whether I might intend to drive a car to Buffalo should the train get stuck in the snow. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > And yes I meant to use the "G. is a player" precedent for this; a kibitzer > can still be an anti-scammer, c. :) :) Nice. Did you predict he would do something like that? -- -c.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, comex wrote:
>> Points Party requires "4 days notice" for me to be able to amend it (not
>> With Notice, but rather the ordinary-language sense); I gave the notice,
>> and here's the amendment. As there have now been 4 days of notice (that
>> I intended to amend Points Party), I hereby amend Points Party to the
>> text shown within the {{{ }}} marks in the quote above.
>
> No you didn't, because (a) your "notice" clearly stated that you intended to
> amend without objections, and couldn't possibly have qualified as notice that
> you would do so via another mechanism (adding plain "I intend" to the list of
> intents would probably have avoided this), and (2) "with 4 days notice" is
> close enough that it almost certainly counts as With Notice now that such
> exists in the rules. (Compare how all contract-defined dependent actions were
> re-interpreted as real not pseudo-dependent actions when R1728 was amended to
> allow them.)
Two precedents of use: first, your recent precedent that I wasn't a player
implies strongly that using "intend w/o objection" is a specific R1728
type of notice and doesn't necessarily serve to establish informal, common
language consent, intent, or notice. This can be combined with previous
precedents (a few) that if there's two possible rules-actions that a single
announcement can fulfill, it doesn't fulfill both; if the difference is
substantial it must specify clearly which one it triggers or it's taken to
be wholly ineffective (perhaps the AGAINT precedent is the first example?)
And yes I meant to use the "G. is a player" precedent for this; a kibitzer
can still be an anti-scammer, c. :) :)
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 13:06 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 13:02, Jonatan Kilhamn > wrote: > > 2009/9/18 Roger Hicks : > >> Contracts you were able to leave: Industrial Bank & Agora, Bob's > >> Janitorial Service, The Agoran Agricultural Association (causing your > >> crops and lands to be destroyed) > >> > > Well, dang. > > > >> Contracts you were not able to leave (because they do not provide a > >> mechanism for you to do so by announcement): C# Party (revised > >> version), Enigma, Points Party, The Cookie Jar > >> > > Well, dang again. And trying to do it by agreement between all parties > > doesn't seem to work, seeing as I won't get consent from the inactive > > players that litter the party lists... > > > Thus we need a Notary willing to terminate obsolete contracts without > objection (which would at least solve some of this problem). ais523? > do you intend to act on this? Yes, but I'd been purposely delaying it for a while in preparation for this scam. I'll be back to normal service after this mess has been resolved. -- ais523 Notary
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 13:02, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > 2009/9/18 Roger Hicks : >> Contracts you were able to leave: Industrial Bank & Agora, Bob's >> Janitorial Service, The Agoran Agricultural Association (causing your >> crops and lands to be destroyed) >> > Well, dang. > >> Contracts you were not able to leave (because they do not provide a >> mechanism for you to do so by announcement): C# Party (revised >> version), Enigma, Points Party, The Cookie Jar >> > Well, dang again. And trying to do it by agreement between all parties > doesn't seem to work, seeing as I won't get consent from the inactive > players that litter the party lists... > Thus we need a Notary willing to terminate obsolete contracts without objection (which would at least solve some of this problem). ais523? do you intend to act on this? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
I considered it to work in the order which maximizes zm, but I guess to be consistent with previous rulings it should be taken to fail... Sent from my iPhone On Sep 18, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:38, Jonatanw Kilhamn wrote: For each of those intents (for each of those contracts) I object. I deposit all my crops and WRV. I IBA-withdraw three Distrib-u-matic, two Committee and as many Kill Bill as I can afford. For each public contract that I am a party to, I leave it. For your deposit, the order in which crops and WRV are deposited matters significantly when determining your resulting zm. I recommend that comex reject this deposit for not being specific enough. For AAA and recordkeeping purposes I am considering it to have failed unless comex expresses otherwise. Based on the above deposit failing, here are the results of your withdraws: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:38 - Tiger IBA-withdraws 3 Distrib-u-Matic (FAILED - No Distrib-u-Matic to withdraw) Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:38 - Tiger IBA-withdraws 2 Committee for 60zm Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:38 - Tiger IBA-withdraws 2 Kill Bill for 220zm (as many as possible) Contracts you were able to leave: Industrial Bank & Agora, Bob's Janitorial Service, The Agoran Agricultural Association (causing your crops and lands to be destroyed) Contracts you were not able to leave (because they do not provide a mechanism for you to do so by announcement): C# Party (revised version), Enigma, Points Party, The Cookie Jar BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
2009/9/15 Jonatan Kilhamn : > 2009/9/15 Kerim Aydin : >> >> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: >>> For each public contract that I am a party to, I leave it. >> >> The standards on communicating conditional actions are getting >> ridiculous. I'm tempted to post "I perform all the actions I CAN, >> in the order that maximizes the number of things I can do". >> >> (Not to pick on you personally; this is the latest in a long line). >> > True. I do hope this particular set of actions does not cause great > inconvenience to anyone (read: the Notary and various contract asset > recordkeepors). If I have time, I might post a list of all contracts I > just left later today. > To clarify: the quoted set of actions would have me leave Airstrip One, Bob's Janitorial Service, C# party (both versions), Enigma (I think), IBA, Points Party, the AAA and the Cookie Jar (possibly others as well, but I think that's all of them). -- -Tiger
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams
2009/9/15 Kerim Aydin : > > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: >> For each public contract that I am a party to, I leave it. > > The standards on communicating conditional actions are getting > ridiculous. I'm tempted to post "I perform all the actions I CAN, > in the order that maximizes the number of things I can do". > > (Not to pick on you personally; this is the latest in a long line). > True. I do hope this particular set of actions does not cause great inconvenience to anyone (read: the Notary and various contract asset recordkeepors). If I have time, I might post a list of all contracts I just left later today. -- -Tiger
