On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 20:22 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I intend with Agoran Consent to trigger Rule 2598, "Side-Game
> Suspension".
I was suspecting a possible scam here, but the listed rule numbers
within rule 2598 do appear to be correct. (It would have been easy to
get one of them slightly w
I see your point, but I think the phrasing accomplishes the same
thing. It says "When this Rule is triggered, the following events
happen in order". That makes it pretty clear that the rule is the
agent, doesn't it?
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:00 PM omd wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:2
You can do so due to this clause from Rule 2595:
4. At least one of the following is true:
* the performer is the initiator;
* the initiator was authorized to perform the action due to
holding a rule-defined position now held by the p
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Rebecca wrote:
> Title: Spaceships
> AI: 1.1
Why 1.1?
Gratuitous:
Let's say it's Day 31 and R. Lee has kept eir pledge so far. The answer
to the question "did R. Lee [perform the correct behavior] for least 30 days
[from the time of the pledge]?" would be TRUE regardless of what happens
after that.
Whether (after the 30 days) the pledge is techn
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:32 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 20:22 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I intend with Agoran Consent to trigger Rule 2598, "Side-Game
> > Suspension".
>
> I was suspecting a possible scam here, but the listed rule numbers
> within rule 2598 d
Yes, but then I’d be installed into the relevant office. I don’t want
another office at the moment, and anyway, it would be rude to take it from
R. Lee.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:36 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> You can do so due to this clause from Rule 2595:
>
> >4. At least one of the
Would you actually be installed into the office? Rule 2598 says
5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has
already been Revived); that player is thereby installed into
the office of Astronomor.
I think the most obvious reading is that "that pla
We've always taken it to mean the player who actually takes the action that
requires support. For example, I have intended to initiate elections but I
also don't want three of those positions, so I will leave anyone who does
to actually resolve the intent.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:46 PM Jason Co
Ah sorry about that then.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 10:53 PM, Rebecca wrote:
We've always taken it to mean the player who actually takes the action that
requires support. For example, I have intended to initiate elections but I
also don't want three of those positions, so I will leave anyone who do
Don't be sorry for interpreting the rules! I say this only because it's
just what I've always remembered. Also I've taken the office so it doesn't
matter now!
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Ah sorry about that then.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/21/19 10:53 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> >
Just to add, the reason we read it that way is because that's how the
dependent action rules are written. They're retrospective; if X and Y
has happened, a player can do Z by announcement. The doing Z is
actually taking the action - the business about announcing intent is
just a precondition. This
Yeah, it should have been 1 because that's the power these switches are
secured at, my official answer is dont worry about it dawg
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:09 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Rebecca wrote:
> > Title: Spaceships
> > AI: 1.1
>
> Why 1.1?
>
--
>From R. Lee
Hmm... maybe the statement should have been "The time window of [the
pledge] is 60 days."
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 5:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Gratuitous:
>
> Let's say it's Day 31 and R. Lee has kept eir pledge so far. The answer
> to the question "did R. Lee [perform the correct behavior] for
On 7/5/2019 3:14 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Hmm... maybe the statement should have been "The time window of [the
> pledge] is 60 days."
Remember that before it's been assigned, you can retract the CFJ and
call a different one - adds no work on my end, and I don't think you've
*quite* hit your 5-CF
I'll do that, but I'm not at a laptop right now, so it'll be a few hours.
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 7:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 7/5/2019 3:14 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > Hmm... maybe the statement should have been "The time window of [the
> > pledge] is 60 days."
>
> Remember that before it's b
Heh. Yeah, I've been keeping track of this. I've come close a few times
now. It's of course not my goal to stress this system (though I'm not
sure how much one person actually could with the excess case rule).
Jason Cobb
On 7/5/19 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I don't think you've *quite* hit yo
I didn't see that, but in any case I'm not 100% convinced by Aris' logic.
Letting rule changes take effect without clearly specifying the instrument
causing them just feels like the sort of thing which, if it worked, would have
been used by ais523 for a scam at some point.
-twg
‐‐‐ Origin
I don't really see how that could be exploitable. Anyway, whenever a
rule says "If X occurs, Y occurs", that rule is pretty clearly the
agent for Y.
-Aris
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 8:22 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> I didn't see that, but in any case I'm not 100% convinced by Aris' logic.
> Lett
No, but I've never spotted any exploit before it actually happens and yet
people still pull things off every so often. At the very least I would like
some official confirmation that I'm just worrying about nothing.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, July 5, 2019 6:31 PM, Aris Mer
20 matches
Mail list logo
