I call a CFJ with the statement "The four below actions are each
extremely silly, and none significantly harm my standing in the game".
None of them are remotely silly. Silly in an Agoran context is a
common-law term of art related to Silly proposals. Even if not, no
ordinary meaning of the word silly encompasses these game actions. And
also, even if losing two apples doesn't harm me, losing 3 stone, two
ore and 2 apples does. The actions must all be evaluated seperately,
so even if the first three actions work, the fourth should not.
Anyway, significantly should be interpreted as "not de minimis", and
any asset loss is more than a minimal effect on my standing in the
game.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I become a party to the contract "Sillyness by contract".
>
> I act on behalf of V.J. Rada to perform the following actions: {
>
> Destroy 1 apple to move V.J. Rada to (0, -1).
>
> Destroy 1 apple to move V.J. Rada to (-1, -1).
>
> Transfer all liquid assets from the mine at (-1, -1) to V.J. Rada.
>
> Transfer 3 stone and 2 ore from V.J. Rada to Trigon.
>
> }
>
> This meets the requirement of being extremely silly because it is only
> necessary due to a minor grammatical error on Trigon's part, and it meets the
> requirement of not harming V.J. Rada's standing in the game significantly
> because eir only loss from these actions is 2 apples (which ey already have
> plenty of) and the right to transfer assets from a preserved facility before
> next Friday (which ey already have enough assets not to have much need of).
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On June 12, 2018 10:31 AM, Ned Strange wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> it doesn't, do it again
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Could you guys let me do one thing in this game without pointing out how I
>> >
>> > messed up?
>> >
>> > Okay, okay. Here's a flimsy argument for why this works:
>> >
>> > I could only possibly transfer items to myself from a facility on a land
>> >
>> > unit I'm on. Therefore, "that unit" should mean "the unit I'm on" since
>> >
>> > that's the only option for transferring. Therefore, the attempt succeeds.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 04:13 Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>> >
>> > > On June 12, 2018 8:25 AM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I destroy a coin to make (-2, -1) black and switch the alternating
>> > > > type.
>> > > >
>> > > > I transfer the mine on that unit's resources to myself.
>> > >
>> > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this fails, because (-2, -1)
>> > >
>> > > doesn't have a mine on it, and wasn't where you were standing anyway. I
>> > >
>> > > think you meant to reference the mine at (-1, -1), but I can't come up
>> > > with
>> > >
>> > > a parsing where "that unit" refers to anything other than (-2, -1).
>> > >
>> > > -twg
>>
>> --
>>
>> From V.J. Rada
>
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
