In general, I'd tend to agree with G..
- No *platonic* failures need apply unless a truly verifiable form of
randomness is used; in lieu of that, you can always cheat just by
lying about a roll, so bad randomness would always be a SHALL
violation.
- The basic requirement is that you SHALL make a
Ok, the list. "Unfair" is shorthand for wrong probability.
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> A. An officer selects a random result, then communicates it to
> Agora.
ok
> B. An officer selects two random results, then communicates one to
> Agora.
ok if one cho
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> As for your proto, one thing I notice is that it defers to the Courts as
> to what is considered sufficiently random. I'd treat this as a dubious
> course of action even with the old, fair CFJ system. Our current
> intentionally biased system is probably a
On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 15:08 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This is orthogonal to whether we can *prove* that a roll was fair
> versus having being interfered with (by rejecting certain outcomes,
> which doesn't fit my definition of fair), or what happens with delays
> (which is why I proposed a fix
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 14:36 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > Anyway, the upshot of all this is that despite looking reasonable, the
> > > current definition of randomness simply doesn't work.
> >
> > Which defi
On Mon, 2014-12-01 at 14:36 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Anyway, the upshot of all this is that despite looking reasonable, the
> > current definition of randomness simply doesn't work.
>
> Which definition? The non-existent one currently not in the rul
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> Anyway, the upshot of all this is that despite looking reasonable, the
> current definition of randomness simply doesn't work.
Which definition? The non-existent one currently not in the rules,
or one I proposed?
I'll write a longer post on the cases, bu
On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 10:30 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> > There's been quite a bit of effort in this to shut down possible scams
> > pre-emptively; in particular, I've tried my best to prevent anything
> > similar to Fool's attempted scam, and any scams alon
8 matches
Mail list logo
