On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Fool <fool1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (a) provide an alternate consistent explanation that blocks the
> Action and show that (b) it also fits the other logical questions that arise
> in Agora and (c) it actually does follow from the rules (including R217 of
> course)
Although it appears to be more difficult than we had previously
assumed to formalize the logic of the rules, there are several
possibilities that have been posited in the last few days - some do
not work, but some do. The issue is more of finding an explanation
that fits with Agora's custom than finding one at all; but even if no
explanation had been suggested, there are several reasons that this
would not imply your scam succeeded. The most fundamental one is,
again, that although Agora generally has a positive attitude toward
logical hand grenades and formalisms, some three thousand CFJs have
all operated with a *primarily* legal rather than mathematical
attitude toward the rules, and no sane lawyer nor arbiter of a 'normal
game' would ever accept such an argument, nor would believe that
failing to do so makes the rules inconsistent. The principle that
Agora should operate as we have attempted to formalize it should
usually hold, yet in conflict with the principle that Agora should
operate sanely ("common sense", among other things), it defers.
(Compare Agora to other nomics, such as the old B, which would be much
more likely to accept your logic.)
> The defense have obviously had enough time to come up with all sorts of
> attempts based on other technicalities, which have failed, possibly with the
> exception of the pending accusation that I have not "treated Agora right
> good forever". What they have not done is even attempted step (a) above. Nor
> has anyone even responded to the non-logical side of the argument.
Although it is unlikely that Rule 101 truly affects anything,
attempting to take over the game without any indication of plans to
restore it is fairly[1] rude, as the danger is that (whether legally
as per your argument or simply because confusion as to the correct
interpretation causes an exodus of players) you will bring an abrupt
halt to a game that has been played more or less continuously for 20
years; this seems unlikely at the moment, but the attempt to do so
still rankles, and certainly affects Rule 217's notion of "the best
interests of hte game". It is also worth noting that an attempt to
use a dictatorship to break the judicial process is unprecedented in
my memory, and also considered poor form; again, not the end of the
world if Roujo gets around to assigning the CFJs (please do) and that
universe's judicial system rules that your scam was unsuccessful[2],
after which a consensus should eventually be reached, but since
claiming unilateral judgement, especially in this format, does not
particularly /aid/ your chances of being accepted, but merely sows
discord, I consider it unfortunate that you have elected to do so.
Note that in Lindrum's famous scam, the judgement was required for the
scam to work; not so here. (Lindrum, for eir part, made clear from
the start that e intended to continue Nomic World as a nomic [albeit
in a different form], and did not attempt to kick out any players.)
Now. It does occur to me that a lecture about good form in an online
email game (especially one whose recipient is attempting to claim said
game in the name of a cat) can often reasonably be interpreted as the
lecturer taking the status quo too seriously, and I have received at
least one such lecture in the recent past. On the other hand, in my
perception the threatened harm in that case was considerably less,
although at least some players probably misunderstood... well, while I
do not wish to overly second-guess your motivations, I think you have
objectively acted more aggressively, and that this response is thus
warranted. If, looking back on this, we should think otherwise, well,
where would the fun be without an antagonist?
[1] In the large scale of things, perhaps not very much - indeed, I
suppose that, nobody having (purportedly) deregistered yet, for
whatever reasons, the negative ramifications will add up to less than
in some past scams; but on the face of it, unprecedentedly?
[2] I don't want to think about what happens if it rules that it was
successful. ;p
