Re: DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway
On 7/2/20 4:21 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > Arguments: > > at 12:43 AM, Becca Lee via agora-discussion > wrote: > >> I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into >> products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4. > Your rephrased version is still self-contradictory to my ears. You didn’t > say that you transferred 4 sets of 4 'out of' or ‘from’ those cards, or > that you transferred 16 of the cards in 4 sets of 4, etc., but just that > you transferred "those cards" “in 4 sets of 4”. That equates “those cards” > with “4 sets of 4”. They were paid, not transferred. I would not expect someone to specify "I have $20. I take 18 out of that and break that into 3 sets of 6." instead of "I have $20. I give 3 people $6 each." > > As an analogy, if an advertisement promised I could “pay the fee for this > service in 4 installments of $40”, I would expect $160 to be the entire > fee. I would be quite dismayed to hear that it was only part of the fee, > and there was also, say, a $20 surcharge not included in the installments. This might frustrate you but it would not be necessarily illegal. Nor is it relevant to Agora. >> this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually >> harmful to gameplay. > It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context. And therefore, your CFJ is frivolous. There's plenty of context in that message. > It’s not at > all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant. > (You are lucky, however, that the “unambiguously and clearly specifying the > action” standard from R478 seems to not apply here, so there may be more > wiggle room for ambiguity.)
DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway
On 7/1/20 11:43 PM, omd via agora-business wrote:
> at 7:26 AM, Becca Lee via agora-business
> [](mailto:agora-busin...@agoranomic.org)
> wrote:
>
>> {Acting on behalf of nch, I resolve one of eir intents to deregister R.
>> Lee. I register. I award myself a welcome package. I transfer a victory
>> card and a justice card to nch.}
>>
>> I repeat the above actions in braces so that they happen 16 times total.
>> Nch has 18 victory cards and 18 justice cards.
>>
>> I act on nch’s behalf to pay those victory and justice cards into products
>> in 4 sets of 4 so that e has 40 victory points and 40 Blot-B-Gones.
>
> CFJ, submitted to Referee: The above-quoted attempt to pay cards on nch’s
> behalf was unsuccessful because attempting to pay 18 Victory Cards and/or
> 18 Justice Cards in 4 sets of 4 is self-contradictory.
Arguments:
This isn't self contradictory. It might be a little confusing on the surface
but it's clearly possible to use 4 sets of 4 out of 18 total. E didn't claim to
use all of them, or that there would be none left.
Re: DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway
the fact that you were mathematically confused by "4 sets of 4" doesn't really mean that it's confusing On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:52 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > Reading it initially, I was a bit confused by how the math worked out and > I do think it could have been sufficiently ambiguous to cause it to fail. > > > On Jul 2, 2020, at 08:34, Becca Lee via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > >> > >> It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context. It’s not at > >> all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant. > > > > But if what I said is "obvious", and all the context you have is the > actual > > words I used in the message, what i said automatically clearly conveys > what > > I meant. that's literally how language works! the only way for your > > argument to be successful is if it is remotely possible that I didn't > know > > 4x4. > > > >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:30 PM Becca Lee > wrote: > >> > >> > I repeat the above actions in braces so that they happen 16 times > >> total. > Nch has 18 victory cards and 18 justice cards. > > I act on nch’s behalf to pay those victory and justice cards into > >>> products > in 4 sets of 4 so that e has 40 victory points and 40 Blot-B-Gones. > >> > >> "those cards" are the cards nch had, which was more than 16. i didn't > say > >> "all of those cards". i was just referring to the group of cards that > nch > >> had, rather than any other group of cards. > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:22 PM omd via agora-discussion < > >> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Arguments: > >>> > >>> at 12:43 AM, Becca Lee via agora-discussion > >>> wrote: > >>> > I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into > products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4. > >>> > >>> Your rephrased version is still self-contradictory to my ears. You > >>> didn’t > >>> say that you transferred 4 sets of 4 'out of' or ‘from’ those cards, or > >>> that you transferred 16 of the cards in 4 sets of 4, etc., but just > that > >>> you transferred "those cards" “in 4 sets of 4”. That equates “those > >>> cards” > >>> with “4 sets of 4”. > >>> > >>> As an analogy, if an advertisement promised I could “pay the fee for > >>> this > >>> service in 4 installments of $40”, I would expect $160 to be the entire > >>> fee. I would be quite dismayed to hear that it was only part of the > >>> fee, > >>> and there was also, say, a $20 surcharge not included in the > installments. > >>> > this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually > harmful to gameplay. > >>> > >>> It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context. It’s not > at > >>> all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant. > >>> (You are lucky, however, that the “unambiguously and clearly specifying > >>> the > >>> action” standard from R478 seems to not apply here, so there may be > more > >>> wiggle room for ambiguity.) > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> From R. Lee > >> > > > > > > -- > > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway
Reading it initially, I was a bit confused by how the math worked out and I do think it could have been sufficiently ambiguous to cause it to fail. > On Jul 2, 2020, at 08:34, Becca Lee via agora-discussion > wrote: > > >> >> It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context. It’s not at >> all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant. > > But if what I said is "obvious", and all the context you have is the actual > words I used in the message, what i said automatically clearly conveys what > I meant. that's literally how language works! the only way for your > argument to be successful is if it is remotely possible that I didn't know > 4x4. > >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:30 PM Becca Lee wrote: >> >> I repeat the above actions in braces so that they happen 16 times >> total. Nch has 18 victory cards and 18 justice cards. I act on nch’s behalf to pay those victory and justice cards into >>> products in 4 sets of 4 so that e has 40 victory points and 40 Blot-B-Gones. >> >> "those cards" are the cards nch had, which was more than 16. i didn't say >> "all of those cards". i was just referring to the group of cards that nch >> had, rather than any other group of cards. >> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:22 PM omd via agora-discussion < >> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >>> Arguments: >>> >>> at 12:43 AM, Becca Lee via agora-discussion >>> wrote: >>> I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4. >>> >>> Your rephrased version is still self-contradictory to my ears. You >>> didn’t >>> say that you transferred 4 sets of 4 'out of' or ‘from’ those cards, or >>> that you transferred 16 of the cards in 4 sets of 4, etc., but just that >>> you transferred "those cards" “in 4 sets of 4”. That equates “those >>> cards” >>> with “4 sets of 4”. >>> >>> As an analogy, if an advertisement promised I could “pay the fee for >>> this >>> service in 4 installments of $40”, I would expect $160 to be the entire >>> fee. I would be quite dismayed to hear that it was only part of the >>> fee, >>> and there was also, say, a $20 surcharge not included in the installments. >>> this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually harmful to gameplay. >>> >>> It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context. It’s not at >>> all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant. >>> (You are lucky, however, that the “unambiguously and clearly specifying >>> the >>> action” standard from R478 seems to not apply here, so there may be more >>> wiggle room for ambiguity.) >>> >> >> >> -- >> From R. Lee >> > > > -- > From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway
> It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context. It’s not at >all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant. But if what I said is "obvious", and all the context you have is the actual words I used in the message, what i said automatically clearly conveys what I meant. that's literally how language works! the only way for your argument to be successful is if it is remotely possible that I didn't know 4x4. On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:30 PM Becca Lee wrote: > > > > I repeat the above actions in braces so that they happen 16 times > total. > > > Nch has 18 victory cards and 18 justice cards. > > > > > > I act on nch’s behalf to pay those victory and justice cards into > > products > > > in 4 sets of 4 so that e has 40 victory points and 40 Blot-B-Gones. > > "those cards" are the cards nch had, which was more than 16. i didn't say > "all of those cards". i was just referring to the group of cards that nch > had, rather than any other group of cards. > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:22 PM omd via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> Arguments: >> >> at 12:43 AM, Becca Lee via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> >> > I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into >> > products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4. >> >> Your rephrased version is still self-contradictory to my ears. You >> didn’t >> say that you transferred 4 sets of 4 'out of' or ‘from’ those cards, or >> that you transferred 16 of the cards in 4 sets of 4, etc., but just that >> you transferred "those cards" “in 4 sets of 4”. That equates “those >> cards” >> with “4 sets of 4”. >> >> As an analogy, if an advertisement promised I could “pay the fee for >> this >> service in 4 installments of $40”, I would expect $160 to be the entire >> fee. I would be quite dismayed to hear that it was only part of the >> fee, >> and there was also, say, a $20 surcharge not included in the installments. >> >> > this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually >> > harmful to gameplay. >> >> It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context. It’s not at >> all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant. >> (You are lucky, however, that the “unambiguously and clearly specifying >> the >> action” standard from R478 seems to not apply here, so there may be more >> wiggle room for ambiguity.) >> > > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway
> > I repeat the above actions in braces so that they happen 16 times total. > > Nch has 18 victory cards and 18 justice cards. > > > > I act on nch’s behalf to pay those victory and justice cards into > products > > in 4 sets of 4 so that e has 40 victory points and 40 Blot-B-Gones. "those cards" are the cards nch had, which was more than 16. i didn't say "all of those cards". i was just referring to the group of cards that nch had, rather than any other group of cards. On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:22 PM omd via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Arguments: > > at 12:43 AM, Becca Lee via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into > > products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4. > > Your rephrased version is still self-contradictory to my ears. You > didn’t > say that you transferred 4 sets of 4 'out of' or ‘from’ those cards, or > that you transferred 16 of the cards in 4 sets of 4, etc., but just that > you transferred "those cards" “in 4 sets of 4”. That equates “those > cards” > with “4 sets of 4”. > > As an analogy, if an advertisement promised I could “pay the fee for this > service in 4 installments of $40”, I would expect $160 to be the entire > fee. I would be quite dismayed to hear that it was only part of the fee, > and there was also, say, a $20 surcharge not included in the installments. > > > this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually > > harmful to gameplay. > > It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context. It’s not at > all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant. > (You are lucky, however, that the “unambiguously and clearly specifying > the > action” standard from R478 seems to not apply here, so there may be more > wiggle room for ambiguity.) > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway
Arguments: at 12:43 AM, Becca Lee via agora-discussion wrote: I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4. Your rephrased version is still self-contradictory to my ears. You didn’t say that you transferred 4 sets of 4 'out of' or ‘from’ those cards, or that you transferred 16 of the cards in 4 sets of 4, etc., but just that you transferred "those cards" “in 4 sets of 4”. That equates “those cards” with “4 sets of 4”. As an analogy, if an advertisement promised I could “pay the fee for this service in 4 installments of $40”, I would expect $160 to be the entire fee. I would be quite dismayed to hear that it was only part of the fee, and there was also, say, a $20 surcharge not included in the installments. this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually harmful to gameplay. It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context. It’s not at all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant. (You are lucky, however, that the “unambiguously and clearly specifying the action” standard from R478 seems to not apply here, so there may be more wiggle room for ambiguity.)
Re: DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway
this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually
harmful to gameplay.
Also regarding the what is clearly thing, see these CFJs (this is a copiedm
essage from discord, putting ito n list.
3667 found that non-quotes buried in quotes worked. 3676 found that putting
it actually *in* the quotes was a step too far. The 3667 attempt that
worked:
[17:04]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039218.html
[17:05]
The 3676 that failed:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039261.html
[17:05]
Those judgements are short and referred to other ones around the same time
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 5:44 PM Becca Lee via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into
> products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4.
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 2:44 PM omd via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > at 7:26 AM, Becca Lee via agora-business
> > wrote:
> >
> > > {Acting on behalf of nch, I resolve one of eir intents to deregister R.
> > > Lee. I register. I award myself a welcome package. I transfer a victory
> > > card and a justice card to nch.}
> > >
> > > I repeat the above actions in braces so that they happen 16 times
> total.
> > > Nch has 18 victory cards and 18 justice cards.
> > >
> > > I act on nch’s behalf to pay those victory and justice cards into
> > products
> > > in 4 sets of 4 so that e has 40 victory points and 40 Blot-B-Gones.
> >
> > CFJ, submitted to Referee: The above-quoted attempt to pay cards on nch’s
> > behalf was unsuccessful because attempting to pay 18 Victory Cards and/or
> > 18 Justice Cards in 4 sets of 4 is self-contradictory.
> >
> > Evidence: The above quote.
> >
> > Supposing it was unsuccessful, then...
> >
> > > I act
> > > on nch’s behalf to transfer 40 victory points to myself and 40
> > > Blot-B-Gones to myself. (I now have 0 blots and 40 blot-b-gones). I
> > expunge
> > > 40 blots from myself. I am now Pure and I own over 20 more points than
> > any
> > > other player. I win the game by announcement. All cards and products
> > are
> > > destroyed, then one of each card is created in each player’s
> possession.
> >
> > ...all of the above also fails...
> >
> > > There are still 24 intents left. I give myself 40 blots.
> >
> > …but this succeeds, leaving R. Lee with 80 Blots.
> >
> > > {Acting on behalf of nch, I resolve one of eir intents to deregister R.
> > > Lee.
> > >
> > > I register. I award myself a welcome package. I transfer a victory card
> > and
> > > a justice card to nch.}
> > >
> > > I repeat the above actions in braces enough so that they happen 24
> times
> > > total. Nch now has 25 justice cards and 25 victory cards. I act on
> behalf
> > > of nch to pay those cards in 6 sets of 4 to make 60 Blot-B-Gone and 60
> > > Victory Points.
> >
> > This would fail for the same reason as the last one.
> >
> > > I act on nch’s behalf to transfer those assets to myself.
> >
> > And this would also fail.
> >
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>
--
>From R. Lee
DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway
I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into
products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 2:44 PM omd via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> at 7:26 AM, Becca Lee via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> > {Acting on behalf of nch, I resolve one of eir intents to deregister R.
> > Lee. I register. I award myself a welcome package. I transfer a victory
> > card and a justice card to nch.}
> >
> > I repeat the above actions in braces so that they happen 16 times total.
> > Nch has 18 victory cards and 18 justice cards.
> >
> > I act on nch’s behalf to pay those victory and justice cards into
> products
> > in 4 sets of 4 so that e has 40 victory points and 40 Blot-B-Gones.
>
> CFJ, submitted to Referee: The above-quoted attempt to pay cards on nch’s
> behalf was unsuccessful because attempting to pay 18 Victory Cards and/or
> 18 Justice Cards in 4 sets of 4 is self-contradictory.
>
> Evidence: The above quote.
>
> Supposing it was unsuccessful, then...
>
> > I act
> > on nch’s behalf to transfer 40 victory points to myself and 40
> > Blot-B-Gones to myself. (I now have 0 blots and 40 blot-b-gones). I
> expunge
> > 40 blots from myself. I am now Pure and I own over 20 more points than
> any
> > other player. I win the game by announcement. All cards and products
> are
> > destroyed, then one of each card is created in each player’s possession.
>
> ...all of the above also fails...
>
> > There are still 24 intents left. I give myself 40 blots.
>
> …but this succeeds, leaving R. Lee with 80 Blots.
>
> > {Acting on behalf of nch, I resolve one of eir intents to deregister R.
> > Lee.
> >
> > I register. I award myself a welcome package. I transfer a victory card
> and
> > a justice card to nch.}
> >
> > I repeat the above actions in braces enough so that they happen 24 times
> > total. Nch now has 25 justice cards and 25 victory cards. I act on behalf
> > of nch to pay those cards in 6 sets of 4 to make 60 Blot-B-Gone and 60
> > Victory Points.
>
> This would fail for the same reason as the last one.
>
> > I act on nch’s behalf to transfer those assets to myself.
>
> And this would also fail.
>
--
>From R. Lee
