Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

>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", >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

...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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

>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,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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 >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

>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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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,

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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 >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

Also, before I forget, this is "Message A", in SHA256: 522EF772154A383CA26D3DC4EAA2ADBEF1ADFA187D0F7AA32D44F01F468AFF05 1EB9270A02E632866CBB1C3D4F5386A3BBE6EE2BF449C6B47B157134F891352F AB5DF625BC76DBD4E163BED2DD888DF828F90159BB93556525C31821B6541D46

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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 >

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

"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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

* 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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

> 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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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. ->

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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 >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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,

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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,

DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

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: >