> so my intent was it's whomever first comes up with the loophole, provided
e then reveals it.

Alright, so it IS a race.



On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:43 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:

>
> 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
> >> trick
> >> 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
> >> lot)
> >> 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
> >> how
> >>> 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
> >> case,
> >>>> Im up for trading/sharing loopholes with people so that me and the
> >> trader
> >>>> have the most loopholes, shhhh *puts finger on lips* Kerim would never
> >> know
> >>>> 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,
> >> I'll
> >>>>> give a purse (from my personal holdings) of 25 coins to said person,
> >>>>> if at all possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Details:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - 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
> >>>>> disqualified.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Loopholes that require rules violations to work are disqualified.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - If the consensus is that the loophole is a bug, you must propose a
> >>>>> fix.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - 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