DIS: Re: BUS: spaaaaaaaace shall be mine
Oh, that's a good fix. Makes space warfare more expensive too, which it probably ought to be. On 2019-02-03 11:38, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I resolve Space Battle 0004 as follows: Telnaior spent 2 Energy (private communication), so eir Energy decreases from 20 to 18. Trigon spent 10 Energy (public announcement), so eir Energy decreases from 20 to 10. Therefore: Telnaior's Spaceship's Armour decreases from 1 to 0 (it is Defeated). Trigon's Spaceship's Armour decreases from 10 to 8. Trigon's Spaceship's Armour decreased by more than Telnaior's Spaceship's Armour did, and therefore Telnaior is the winner. Sorry Trigon. I submit the following proposal: // Title: Spaaace Loophole #493 Adoption index: 1.0 Author: twg Co-authors: Telnaior Amend Rule 2591, "Spaceships", by changing the text "Armour (an integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10 inclusive)" to "Armour (an integer switch limited to values less than or equal to 10)" and by changing the text 'A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 is "Defeated"' to 'A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 or less is "Defeated"'. [There are other ways to patch this, but I feel this is more elegant. If anybody else prefers a different solution, feel free to propose it.] // -violent space warmonger ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, February 2, 2019 11:04 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: I'm going to post the whole thing anyway because I spent actual time on it. The entirety of the next paragraph is the aforementioned string. Once there was a very polygonal fellow named Trigon. Trigon owned a spaceship, which he loved to ride around in. Even though Trigon had an alliance with a violent space warmonger named twg, he remained very peaceful otherwise. One day, Trigon was idling in his spaceship in Sector 12, far away from most of the contention in the galaxy. Suddenly, to the starboard side of the ship, Trigon heard the distinctive sound of a warp drive slowing down. Trigon rushed to the window and saw an unfamiliar ship obviously waiting to do battle with him. Trigon hailed the ship and a voice proclaimed from the other side: "Trigon, I am called Telnaior. I have come back to life. Space shall be mine!" Trigon didn't feel like he deserved this, as he had just helped Telnaior in space court. However, Trigon, ever a good sport, obligingly aimed at Telnaior with all the power he had. If this doesn't work, I wish to spend 10 energy. On 2/2/19 3:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Oh, uh, I should probably have said this earlier (sorry), but Telnaior's already sent me eir value so you can just reveal yours. Or privately message it to me. As you wish. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, February 2, 2019 10:44 PM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com wrote: I wish to spend an amount of energy equal to the amount of times the word "Trigon" appears in the following MD5-hashed string: 3ead941ba453030eaf88ac41692aa0f2 On 2/2/19 5:14 AM, Telnaior wrote: I cause my Spaceship to pay 4 energy to move from Sector 16 to Sector 12. I then initiate a Space Battle between my Spaceship and Trigon's Spaceship in Sector 12, specifying twg as the resolver. -- Trigon -- Trigon
DIS: Re: BUS: spaaaaaaaace shall be mine
:/ On 2/2/19 5:38 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I resolve Space Battle 0004 as follows: Telnaior spent 2 Energy (private communication), so eir Energy decreases from 20 to 18. Trigon spent 10 Energy (public announcement), so eir Energy decreases from 20 to 10. Therefore: Telnaior's Spaceship's Armour decreases from 1 to 0 (it is Defeated). Trigon's Spaceship's Armour decreases from 10 to 8. Trigon's Spaceship's Armour decreased by more than Telnaior's Spaceship's Armour did, and therefore Telnaior is the winner. Sorry Trigon. I submit the following proposal: // Title: Spaaace Loophole #493 Adoption index: 1.0 Author: twg Co-authors: Telnaior Amend Rule 2591, "Spaceships", by changing the text "Armour (an integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10 inclusive)" to "Armour (an integer switch limited to values less than or equal to 10)" and by changing the text 'A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 is "Defeated"' to 'A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 or less is "Defeated"'. [There are other ways to patch this, but I feel this is more elegant. If anybody else prefers a different solution, feel free to propose it.] // -violent space warmonger ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, February 2, 2019 11:04 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: I'm going to post the whole thing anyway because I spent actual time on it. The entirety of the next paragraph is the aforementioned string. Once there was a very polygonal fellow named Trigon. Trigon owned a spaceship, which he loved to ride around in. Even though Trigon had an alliance with a violent space warmonger named twg, he remained very peaceful otherwise. One day, Trigon was idling in his spaceship in Sector 12, far away from most of the contention in the galaxy. Suddenly, to the starboard side of the ship, Trigon heard the distinctive sound of a warp drive slowing down. Trigon rushed to the window and saw an unfamiliar ship obviously waiting to do battle with him. Trigon hailed the ship and a voice proclaimed from the other side: "Trigon, I am called Telnaior. I have come back to life. Space shall be mine!" Trigon didn't feel like he deserved this, as he had just helped Telnaior in space court. However, Trigon, ever a good sport, obligingly aimed at Telnaior with all the power he had. If this doesn't work, I wish to spend 10 energy. On 2/2/19 3:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Oh, uh, I should probably have said this earlier (sorry), but Telnaior's already sent me eir value so you can just reveal yours. Or privately message it to me. As you wish. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, February 2, 2019 10:44 PM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com wrote: I wish to spend an amount of energy equal to the amount of times the word "Trigon" appears in the following MD5-hashed string: 3ead941ba453030eaf88ac41692aa0f2 On 2/2/19 5:14 AM, Telnaior wrote: I cause my Spaceship to pay 4 energy to move from Sector 16 to Sector 12. I then initiate a Space Battle between my Spaceship and Trigon's Spaceship in Sector 12, specifying twg as the resolver. -- Trigon -- Trigon -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
Whoops, thanks. > On Feb 2, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > No, R2532/2: "A zombie's master CAN flip that zombie's master switch to Agora > by announcement." > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 10:04 PM, D. Margaux >> wrote: >> >> I think the second action fails for the same reason, no? >> On Feb 2, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I transfer all Tenhigitsune's liquid assets to myself, flip eir master switch to Agora, and bid 1 coin in this auction. >>> >>> You forgot to act on behalf, so the first action fails. >>> Greetings, >>> Ørjan. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
No, R2532/2: "A zombie's master CAN flip that zombie's master switch to Agora by announcement." -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, February 2, 2019 10:04 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I think the second action fails for the same reason, no? > > > On Feb 2, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > I transfer all Tenhigitsune's liquid assets to myself, flip eir master > > > switch to Agora, and bid 1 coin in this auction. > > > > You forgot to act on behalf, so the first action fails. > > Greetings, > > Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
I think the second action fails for the same reason, no? > On Feb 2, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> I transfer all Tenhigitsune's liquid assets to myself, flip eir master >> switch to Agora, and bid 1 coin in this auction. > > You forgot to act on behalf, so the first action fails. > > Greetings, > Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
Yeah, I noticed a few minutes after I sent it and mentally kicked myself. Oh well, it's only a 10-coin loss. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, February 2, 2019 9:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > I transfer all Tenhigitsune's liquid assets to myself, flip eir master > > switch to Agora, and bid 1 coin in this auction. > > You forgot to act on behalf, so the first action fails. > > Greetings, > Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I transfer all Tenhigitsune's liquid assets to myself, flip eir master switch to Agora, and bid 1 coin in this auction. You forgot to act on behalf, so the first action fails. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer something something
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote: When a player Becomes One With The Cosmos, if their Fame is either 10 or -10, their Fame is set to 0 and they win the game." Please use proper Agoran pronouns. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts to shoot people via their spacemobile for no good reason
It’s not Faking if you didn’t know. Gaelan > On Feb 2, 2019, at 3:38 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > Yeah, I agree with the moving. That's still totally legit, it's just the > battle initiation which got bugged out > ohgodpleasedon'tpointfingersatmeagainfornofaking > >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 12:34 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> Yep, the initiation is INEFFECTIVE because Tenhigitsune's ship was still >> engaging in its Space Battle with D. Margaux at the time. (And it was >> Defeated in that Space Battle, so another attempt would still be >> INEFFECTIVE.) I believe you did successfully move to Sector 9, though. >> >> -twg >> >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Friday, February 1, 2019 5:31 PM, Cuddle Beam >> wrote: >> >>> I make my (only) ship spend 1 energy to go to sector 9, from sector 8. >>> >>> I initiate a space battle between my ship and Tenhigitsune's ship in >> sector >>> 9, to be resolved by D. Margaux >> >> >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
Haven’t we had a CFJ about these sorts of apologies? Gaelan > On Feb 2, 2019, at 3:29 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > [image: image.png] > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet. I made an error because I had an > oversight, I have shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. > > I expunge 2 blots from myself. > > >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 11:59 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> I Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying a fine of 2 blots on >> CuddleBeam for Endorsing Forgery by not describing the error in the >> document e intended to ratify. This has been reduced from the base value of >> 8 blots because it was quite obvious from context what the error was, and >> therefore this is a violation of the letter of the rules but not the >> spirit. (It's also arguable that eir explanation of why e was intending to >> ratify it was not "clear and plain", but again this was obvious from >> context and so I won't try to figure it out either way because it doesn't >> affect the fine. CFJ it if you really care.) >> >> This violation is forgivable. CuddleBeam CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge >> 2 blots from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words >> containing the words "annoyance", "persnickety", "pedantry" and "mullet", >> explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for >> self-improvement. >> >> -twg >> >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:46 PM, Gaelan Steele >> wrote: >> >>> I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violating 2202/6: >>> >>> A player SHALL NOT knowingly use or announce intent to use Ratification >> Without Objection to ratify a (prior to ratification) document containing >> incorrect or Indeterminate information when a corrected document could be >> produced with reasonable effort, unless the general nature of the >> document's error and reason for ratifying it is clearly and plainly >> described in the announcement of intent. Such ratification or announcement >> of intent to ratify is the Class-8 Crime of Endorsing Forgery. >>> >>> Gaelan >>> On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote: Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. I intend to ratify without objection the following document: The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red >> wrote: > You are a player and therefore not a fugitive. > However, Kenyon indeed ought to have lost some blots - you're >> correct that > I didn't see that clause in the rules. Eir blots have self-ratified >> into > existence now but I will remember for next quarter. Thank you. > -twg > ‐‐‐ Original
Re: DIS: Unlasting Damage
... or negative amounts of Energy lmao On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 13:44, Cuddle Beam wrote: > For some reason some of Agora is falling into my Spam on gmail. > > If you’re going to limit Energy use to a max of X because of the profit in > savings both combatants would get, it’s more profitable to limit it to a > max of X-1. And X-2, etc. I don’t know where some kind of equilibrium would > be reached but I’m under the impression that the best strategy is to just > spend 1 Energy to attack and have the other concede and spend 0, decided > via an external agreement/competition that isnt an actual Space Battle. > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 19:18, D. Margaux wrote: > >> I think this works. Punishment for violation could be to permit the >> aggrieved player to act on behalf of the violator to transfer to the >> aggrieved player a number of coins sufficient (but not more than necessary) >> to enable the aggrieved player to put emself in the same position with >> respect to armour and energy as e would have been in if the contract had >> been followed. (The precise language of that punishment may need to be >> ironed out a little.) >> >> > On Jan 29, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > >> > >> > Proto-contract: Unlasting Damage >> > (does this work? thoughts, edits?) >> > >> > When a combatant is a member of this contract, when they initiate a >> space >> > battle with another member, they can specify that the combat uses Anti- >> > Entropy. Members of this contract agree that, for any space battle in >> > which both combatants are members and this is specified, they will >> submit a >> > value in the range N-30, where N is between 0 and 20, inclusive. >> > >> > (thoughts on punishment if broken?) >> > >> > This contract is not an alliance. >> > >> >> On 1/29/2019 8:15 AM, D. Margaux wrote: >> >> I resolve space battle 0002 as follows: >> >> twg chose 10 energy. >> >> G. chose -10 (i.e., negative 10) energy. >> >> twg's spaceship: 10/10 armour*, 10/20 energy >> >> G.'s spaceship: 0/10 armour, 20/20 energy** >> >> twg is the winner. >> >> >> >> *By Rule 2591, armour is a switch with value 0 to 10, so twg's armour >> >> CANNOT grow to 20. >> >> **By Rule 2592, any energy in excess of 20 is destroyed, so G.'s >> >> energy CANNOT grow to 30 (or if it does, it is immediately reduced >> >> back to 20). >> >>> On 1/15/2019 6:02 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >>> - SPACE BATTLE 0002 >> - >> >>> 2019-01-15 - UNRESOLVED >> >>> SECTOR 07 >> >>> Aggressor: twg VS. >> Defender: G. >> >>> Energy: ?? >> Energy: ?? >> >>> Resolver: D. Margaux >> >
Re: DIS: Unlasting Damage
For some reason some of Agora is falling into my Spam on gmail. If you’re going to limit Energy use to a max of X because of the profit in savings both combatants would get, it’s more profitable to limit it to a max of X-1. And X-2, etc. I don’t know where some kind of equilibrium would be reached but I’m under the impression that the best strategy is to just spend 1 Energy to attack and have the other concede and spend 0, decided via an external agreement/competition that isnt an actual Space Battle. On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 19:18, D. Margaux wrote: > I think this works. Punishment for violation could be to permit the > aggrieved player to act on behalf of the violator to transfer to the > aggrieved player a number of coins sufficient (but not more than necessary) > to enable the aggrieved player to put emself in the same position with > respect to armour and energy as e would have been in if the contract had > been followed. (The precise language of that punishment may need to be > ironed out a little.) > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > Proto-contract: Unlasting Damage > > (does this work? thoughts, edits?) > > > > When a combatant is a member of this contract, when they initiate a space > > battle with another member, they can specify that the combat uses Anti- > > Entropy. Members of this contract agree that, for any space battle in > > which both combatants are members and this is specified, they will > submit a > > value in the range N-30, where N is between 0 and 20, inclusive. > > > > (thoughts on punishment if broken?) > > > > This contract is not an alliance. > > > >> On 1/29/2019 8:15 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > >> I resolve space battle 0002 as follows: > >> twg chose 10 energy. > >> G. chose -10 (i.e., negative 10) energy. > >> twg's spaceship: 10/10 armour*, 10/20 energy > >> G.'s spaceship: 0/10 armour, 20/20 energy** > >> twg is the winner. > >> > >> *By Rule 2591, armour is a switch with value 0 to 10, so twg's armour > >> CANNOT grow to 20. > >> **By Rule 2592, any energy in excess of 20 is destroyed, so G.'s > >> energy CANNOT grow to 30 (or if it does, it is immediately reduced > >> back to 20). > >>> On 1/15/2019 6:02 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > >>> - SPACE BATTLE 0002 > - > >>> 2019-01-15 - UNRESOLVED > >>> SECTOR 07 > >>> Aggressor: twg VS. Defender: > G. > >>> Energy: ?? Energy: > ?? > >>> Resolver: D. Margaux >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts to shoot people via their spacemobile for no good reason
Yeah, I agree with the moving. That's still totally legit, it's just the battle initiation which got bugged out ohgodpleasedon'tpointfingersatmeagainfornofaking On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 12:34 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Yep, the initiation is INEFFECTIVE because Tenhigitsune's ship was still > engaging in its Space Battle with D. Margaux at the time. (And it was > Defeated in that Space Battle, so another attempt would still be > INEFFECTIVE.) I believe you did successfully move to Sector 9, though. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Friday, February 1, 2019 5:31 PM, Cuddle Beam > wrote: > > > I make my (only) ship spend 1 energy to go to sector 9, from sector 8. > > > > I initiate a space battle between my ship and Tenhigitsune's ship in > sector > > 9, to be resolved by D. Margaux > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts to shoot people via their spacemobile for no good reason
Yep, the initiation is INEFFECTIVE because Tenhigitsune's ship was still engaging in its Space Battle with D. Margaux at the time. (And it was Defeated in that Space Battle, so another attempt would still be INEFFECTIVE.) I believe you did successfully move to Sector 9, though. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, February 1, 2019 5:31 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I make my (only) ship spend 1 energy to go to sector 9, from sector 8. > > I initiate a space battle between my ship and Tenhigitsune's ship in sector > 9, to be resolved by D. Margaux
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
NttPF -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, February 2, 2019 11:29 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet > annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet. I made an error because I had an > oversight, I have shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. > > I expunge 2 blots from myself. > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 11:59 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > I Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying a fine of 2 blots on > > CuddleBeam for Endorsing Forgery by not describing the error in the > > document e intended to ratify. This has been reduced from the base value of > > 8 blots because it was quite obvious from context what the error was, and > > therefore this is a violation of the letter of the rules but not the > > spirit. (It's also arguable that eir explanation of why e was intending to > > ratify it was not "clear and plain", but again this was obvious from > > context and so I won't try to figure it out either way because it doesn't > > affect the fine. CFJ it if you really care.) > > > > This violation is forgivable. CuddleBeam CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge > > 2 blots from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words > > containing the words "annoyance", "persnickety", "pedantry" and "mullet", > > explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for > > self-improvement. > > > > -twg > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:46 PM, Gaelan Steele > > wrote: > > > > > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violating 2202/6: > > > > > > A player SHALL NOT knowingly use or announce intent to use Ratification > > > Without Objection to ratify a (prior to ratification) document containing > > > incorrect or Indeterminate information when a corrected document could be > > > produced with reasonable effort, unless the general nature of the > > > document's error and reason for ratifying it is clearly and plainly > > > described in the announcement of intent. Such ratification or > > > announcement of intent to ratify is the Class-8 Crime of Endorsing > > > Forgery. > > > > > > Gaelan > > > > > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. > > > > I intend to ratify without objection the following document: > > > > The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red > > > > > wrote: > > > > > You are a player and therefore not a fugitive. > > > > > However, Kenyon indeed ought to have lost some blots - you're correct > > > > > that > > > > > I didn't see that clause in the rules. Eir blots have self-ratified > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
[image: image.png] annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet annoyance persnickety pedantry mullet. I made an error because I had an oversight, I have shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. I expunge 2 blots from myself. On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 11:59 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying a fine of 2 blots on > CuddleBeam for Endorsing Forgery by not describing the error in the > document e intended to ratify. This has been reduced from the base value of > 8 blots because it was quite obvious from context what the error was, and > therefore this is a violation of the letter of the rules but not the > spirit. (It's also arguable that eir explanation of why e was intending to > ratify it was not "clear and plain", but again this was obvious from > context and so I won't try to figure it out either way because it doesn't > affect the fine. CFJ it if you really care.) > > This violation is forgivable. CuddleBeam CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge > 2 blots from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words > containing the words "annoyance", "persnickety", "pedantry" and "mullet", > explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for > self-improvement. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:46 PM, Gaelan Steele > wrote: > > > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violating 2202/6: > > > > A player SHALL NOT knowingly use or announce intent to use Ratification > Without Objection to ratify a (prior to ratification) document containing > incorrect or Indeterminate information when a corrected document could be > produced with reasonable effort, unless the general nature of the > document's error and reason for ratifying it is clearly and plainly > described in the announcement of intent. Such ratification or announcement > of intent to ratify is the Class-8 Crime of Endorsing Forgery. > > > > Gaelan > > > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. > > > I intend to ratify without objection the following document: > > > The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:21 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red > wrote: > > > > You are a player and therefore not a fugitive. > > > > However, Kenyon indeed ought to have lost some blots - you're > correct that > > > > I didn't see that clause in the rules. Eir blots have self-ratified > into > > > > existence now but I will remember for next quarter. Thank you. > > > > -twg > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:18 PM, Cuddle Beam > cuddleb...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > "At the beginning of each quarter, half (rounded down) of each > > > > > fugitive's
Re: DIS: Unlasting Damage
I would also add a clause allowing parties to leave the contract if not currently engaging in a Space Battle, but in principle I think it works too, although I don't entirely see the point - an Energy value higher than the Spaceship's Energy balance is explicitly reduced to the Spaceship's Energy balance, and a negative Energy value should have the same effect as zero Energy (because you can't "revoke" a negative number of assets). (And effects on Armour are based on the amount of Energy actually revoked, not the amount stated.) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 6:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I think this works. Punishment for violation could be to permit the aggrieved > player to act on behalf of the violator to transfer to the aggrieved player a > number of coins sufficient (but not more than necessary) to enable the > aggrieved player to put emself in the same position with respect to armour > and energy as e would have been in if the contract had been followed. (The > precise language of that punishment may need to be ironed out a little.) > > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote: > > Proto-contract: Unlasting Damage > > (does this work? thoughts, edits?) > > When a combatant is a member of this contract, when they initiate a space > > battle with another member, they can specify that the combat uses Anti- > > Entropy. Members of this contract agree that, for any space battle in > > which both combatants are members and this is specified, they will submit a > > value in the range N-30, where N is between 0 and 20, inclusive. > > (thoughts on punishment if broken?) > > This contract is not an alliance. > > > > > On 1/29/2019 8:15 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > I resolve space battle 0002 as follows: > > > twg chose 10 energy. > > > G. chose -10 (i.e., negative 10) energy. > > > twg's spaceship: 10/10 armour*, 10/20 energy > > > G.'s spaceship: 0/10 armour, 20/20 energy** > > > twg is the winner. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > *By Rule 2591, armour is a switch with value 0 to 10, so twg's armour > > > CANNOT grow to 20. > > > **By Rule 2592, any energy in excess of 20 is destroyed, so G.'s > > > energy CANNOT grow to 30 (or if it does, it is immediately reduced > > > back to 20). > > > > > > > On 1/15/2019 6:02 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > - SPACE BATTLE 0002 - > > > > 2019-01-15 - UNRESOLVED > > > > SECTOR 07 > > > > Aggressor: twg VS. Defender: G. > > > > Energy: ?? Energy: ?? > > > > Resolver: D. Margaux
