When you say "claim points", in the context of this contest- the prize goes
to whomever "points out" the loophole  - so my intent was it's whomever
first comes up with the loophole, provided e then reveals it.

You're right though - if someone started a scam with a hidden-but-public
move, then someone else could say "hey, I know where you're going with that
hidden move!" and explains it publicly, the second person could be seen as
the "pointer-outer".  Since this whole thing is squishy and at Herald's
discretion, I'd say in that case that, if the hidden move maker then
confirms the nature of the scam publicly, e still gets the only credit
because e "pointed out" the scam by starting it then confirming its results.

Overall, I hope that by seeking consensus afterwards we could come to some
reasonable conclusion as a group on who deserves credit for thinking up the
idea without getting too finicky about it.

So sure, in that case, if the first person sent me a private message
explaining eir hidden move, I could use that to show afterwards (during
discussion of who won) that e had the idea first.  But e'd still have to
explain it publicly, too.

On 2/3/2019 11:21 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
So, if its not a race and its all public, if someone else does a scam,
everyone else could then copy it to claim points too? Thats my concern with
the whole race deal - once a loophole is made public, everyone knows about
it. Either you can copy others and claim points for it too, or it becomes a
race to be the first to reveal it.

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 19:44, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:

Ok!  Sorry I missed process details.  Not a race!!

To enter, you have to publicly outline/ describe the full idea of the
loophole during Read the Ruleset week.  If you're actually pulling the
as a scam, you need to make sure we (the "public") have the info we need to
understand how the scam works or is supposed to work by the end of the week
(even if you haven't made the final moves yet).

After the Week ends, I'll list all entries and my initial opinion on them,
and ask for discussion to figure out who won.

Privately I'm willing to be a free patsy - if your scam needs someone else,
I'm willing to perform (ethical non rules-breaking that don't cost me a
actions for free, to further the scam.  I'll keep all private stuff private
- private communications don't count as an entry.

On 2/3/2019 10:31 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
What happens if we publically reveal the loophole? No points? Or thats
you’re supposed to do it? (And it becomes a race)

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 19:30, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Is it first-come-first-getstheirpointsandallthemerit? Its a race?

Or do we all send it to you in private manner or something (in which
Im up for trading/sharing loopholes with people so that me and the
have the most loopholes, shhhh *puts finger on lips* Kerim would never
we traded, its flawless)

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 19:20, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:

Please Read the Ruleset - a mini-competition pledge by the Herald

I pledge to attempt to award an appropriate unique patent title to
whomever points out the most interesting or fun Rules loophole or
unexpected Rules interaction during Read the Ruleset week. Further,
give a purse (from my personal holdings) of 25 coins to said person,
if at all possible.


- If it's a scam, you don't necessarily have to try to attempt to pull
off the scam to enter.  But feel free to!  If you do try it as a scam,
the results must clean up after themselves and "be nice" or will be

- Loopholes that require rules violations to work are disqualified.

- If the consensus is that the loophole is a bug, you must propose a

- Bonus points for the longer the loophole has sat in the rules
unnoticed, whether it's obvious once pointed out, and other aspects
of cleverness of the whole thing (i.e. relying on really iffy twisting
of definitions or rules readings is a minus).

- Final decision is the Herald's, but I'll try to find consensus (and
of course the Patent Title award needs 2 Agoran Consent).

Reply via email to