This provision is clearly intended to be a long-term protection against
rule abuse. In such cases, it seems reasonable to interpret the
meticulous wording as an added safety in case of new rule changes, without
any implications following from whether or not the phrasing is redundant
given the
On 1/20/2019 10:19 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I understand and agree with your logic (and, incidentally, would find it
> hilarious if this made me guilty of Masterminding Being a Bad Space
> Captain), but I have a brief question that occurred to me yesterday about
> Rule 2519, which says:
>
I understand and agree with your logic (and, incidentally, would find it
hilarious if this made me guilty of Masterminding Being a Bad Space Captain),
but I have a brief question that occurred to me yesterday about Rule 2519,
which says:
A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an
On 1/16/2019 5:37 AM, D. Margaux wrote:>
>> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>> If the original attempt failed at all, I would have expected it to be
>> because of R2466's prohibition of sending-messages-on-behalf. I realise
>> that contradicts CFJ 3649 but to be honest
On 1/16/2019 5:37 AM, D. Margaux wrote:>
>> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>
>> Hold on, isn't that exactly what happened here? "rau" is effectively (if
>> we strip away all the fluff about constructed languages, which was a fun
>> excuse but isn't really relevant) a
> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Hold on, isn't that exactly what happened here? "rau" is effectively (if we
> strip away all the fluff about constructed languages, which was a fun excuse
> but isn't really relevant) a secret code devised for communication between
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 12:48 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Of course, if one of the Agorans is possessed of private information (e.g. a
> code arranged with the resolver ahead of time, that e understands), this is
> trivial to arrange, as it becomes "a typical Agoran with information X
>
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau Energy
in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is a
constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include "quang"
and "spaaace".)
Go ahead, CFJ
Proto-judgement:
The exact CFJ statement does not extend the quote far enough. The full
text is:
> SHALL each once communicate to the resolver the amount
> of Energy they wish to spend in the battle, via any method that
> cannot be understood by the other combatant until e has
Here’s a thought experiment to sharpen the point.
Imagine that I don’t know any Spanish at all, but I’ve been told that “uno” is
a number in that language (but not which number it is). I then give the
message, “I spend uno energy.” If twg speaks Spanish and knows that word, then
have I
> On Jan 15, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Actually, at the time you posted the quoted message, "rau" meant "a pigeon or
> dove", so your statement is clearly incorrect. twgese is, after all, an
> evolving language - the meanings of words change all the time.
I apologize, I
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 10:24 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> I cause L to point eir finger at twg for violating special relativity. In
> particular, twg is the resolver, and in eir message e “reveal[ed] the Energy
> a combatant is spending before both combatants have made their decisions”
>
Actually, this really convinces me that this rule makes it impossible (in a
real sense) to play with public announcements (hashes etc). Because it's
impossible to "communicate with the resolver" in a manner that "cannot be
understood" by the other combatant. If the communication relies solely
There's a fairly established set of decisions that says public communication
has to be intelligible to "a typical Agoran" and not just a single Agoran -
that's the AGAINT precedents, arguably more famous than nkep.
History of AGAINT: Someone privately communicated with the Assessor
ahead of
Actually, I don't think this is the same scenario. twgese is just a mechanism
for ensuring that the value of the number Tenhigitsune has announced is unknown
to D. Margaux; the nature of the action that is being taken is perfectly
cromulent to everybody. (Unless it fails for another reason.)
Oh gosh, that's brilliant. I wish I'd known about it, I'd have reused the word.
I have no idea what its implications are for this, though. Case law makes
everything more complicated.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:22 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
I see your Rule 2466/1 and raise you CFJ 3649.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:41 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 2019, at 4:18 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau
> On Jan 15, 2019, at 4:18 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau Energy in
> Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is a constructed
> language invented by me. (Other twgese words include "quang" and "spaaace".)
omg I haven't nkep'd anything in years.
On 1/15/2019 1:22 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau
Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which
is a
On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:22 +, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau
> > Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which
> > is a constructed
On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau
> Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which
> is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include
> "quang" and "spaaace")
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
