DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
But aleph-zero is it's 'hood name, yo. (Also, it's technically correct. I can't pull a book right now but I guess Wikipedia should do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number) On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:23 AM, ATMunn wrote: > it's aleph-null not aleph-zero > > > On 2/8/2018 4:25 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > >> Might as well: >> >> I bid an amount equal to the cardinality of the set of all Natural numbers >> (aleph-zero), on each auction >> >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> >> What does “winning” mean, anyway? >>> >>> I bid i shinies (i.e. sqrt(-1)) on each auction. >>> >>> Gaelan >>> >>> On Feb 8, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I bid π shinies on each auction. > > Gaelan > If this is auction is governed by R2550, then this likely break a SHALL >>> NOT: >>> A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it would be impossible for em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the Auction. If this auction is governed by R1885, then this might be a failed bid attempt, depending on whether "CAN bid a number of Shinies" implicitly requires the number to be shiny-quantized to be successful. Higher bids have been received so I'm ignoring the whole thing, this is more pointing out the difficulties if there's a "winning" non-positive integer bid. >>> >>>
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
It can be aleph-naught, aleph-zero, or aleph-null, see [1]. I always use aleph-null personally, as I think most people (in the United States?) do today and agree that other versions sound a bit weird, but that doesn't make them incorrect. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number -Aris On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:23 PM, ATMunn wrote: > it's aleph-null not aleph-zero > > > On 2/8/2018 4:25 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> >> Might as well: >> >> I bid an amount equal to the cardinality of the set of all Natural numbers >> (aleph-zero), on each auction >> >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> >>> What does “winning” mean, anyway? >>> >>> I bid i shinies (i.e. sqrt(-1)) on each auction. >>> >>> Gaelan >>> On Feb 8, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I bid π shinies on each auction. > > Gaelan If this is auction is governed by R2550, then this likely break a SHALL >>> >>> NOT: A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it would be impossible for em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the Auction. If this auction is governed by R1885, then this might be a failed bid attempt, depending on whether "CAN bid a number of Shinies" implicitly requires the number to be shiny-quantized to be successful. Higher bids have been received so I'm ignoring the whole thing, this is more pointing out the difficulties if there's a "winning" non-positive integer bid. >>> >>> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
This made me laugh out loud. > On Feb 8, 2018, at 4:46 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > >> On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 16:34 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> Still leaves my bid of i. I’m kind of curious about the ruling about >> that, but I’m happy to (attempt to) retract one or both of my bids if >> that’s what everyone would prefer. > > I'd strongly suspect that we don't treat imaginary bids as being real. > > -- > ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Not to bring them up again but I think it would be easier if G. themselves > just admit that their own card was ineffective to clear it out, so no need > for back and forth. I would be dishonest if I said that I knew it was ineffective. There are plausible rules-reasons that it was effective, and so (deals aside) would defer to others' opinions on this point. While the card was my doing, others may have their own opinions on the "breaking fun for everyone" bit so a consensus is fairer IMO.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
Since this requires collective Agoran Consent to prosecute the Red Card and I've said I'm staying out of that, I'm keeping out of any further actions on this. I won't contest anyone else's finger pointed in my direction. On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I'll retract my bids if G. cards themselves for pulling this: > > > Trivial auction breaking spoils everyone's fun. Really. And "I might > > as well" directly break a rule is a terrible attitude to bring to the > > game, and doesn't Treat Agora Right. This deserves a strong penalty. > > > You were testing, I was testing... Citing the rule specifically such that > > a ruling on whether it was appropriate would be specific to cause, and > > choosing a card to make it worth contesting. > > I hope to believe in the future that cardings/fingerpointings from G. are > for legitimate game health reasons and not for taunting people to further > personal agendas (as interesting as the points sought may be). > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > Still leaves my bid of i. I’m kind of curious about the ruling about that, > > but I’m happy to (attempt to) retract one or both of my bids if that’s what > > everyone would prefer. > > > > Gaelan > > > > > On Feb 8, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote: > > >> So what's the status on the remaining two auctions now? > > >> I was hoping to make a serious bid on them. :( > > > > > > Here's how fun's not *entirely* broken: > > > > > > You can still place lower bids. > > > > > > And CuddleBeam *might* be able to retract eir bid (I think e > > > can, because that doesn't outright conflict with the zombie > > > auction rule). > > > > > > Players may wish to think about making support for Throwing > > > the Book at CuddleBeam somehow conditional on whether e withdraws > > > those bids... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
Not to bring them up again but I think it would be easier if G. themselves just admit that their own card was ineffective to clear it out, so no need for back and forth. On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:42 AM, Madeline wrote: > Isn't the implication there that you should appeal it if you're not happy > with it? > > > > On 2018-02-09 11:38, Cuddle Beam wrote: > >> I'll retract my bids if G. cards themselves for pulling this: >> >> Trivial auction breaking spoils everyone's fun. Really. And "I >>> might >>> as well" directly break a rule is a terrible attitude to bring to >>> the >>> game, and doesn't Treat Agora Right. This deserves a strong >>> penalty. >>> You were testing, I was testing... Citing the rule specifically such that >>> a ruling on whether it was appropriate would be specific to cause, and >>> choosing a card to make it worth contesting. >>> >> I hope to believe in the future that cardings/fingerpointings from G. are >> for legitimate game health reasons and not for taunting people to further >> personal agendas (as interesting as the points sought may be). >> >> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> >> Still leaves my bid of i. I’m kind of curious about the ruling about that, >>> but I’m happy to (attempt to) retract one or both of my bids if that’s >>> what >>> everyone would prefer. >>> >>> Gaelan >>> >>> On Feb 8, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote: > So what's the status on the remaining two auctions now? > I was hoping to make a serious bid on them. :( > Here's how fun's not *entirely* broken: You can still place lower bids. And CuddleBeam *might* be able to retract eir bid (I think e can, because that doesn't outright conflict with the zombie auction rule). Players may wish to think about making support for Throwing the Book at CuddleBeam somehow conditional on whether e withdraws those bids... >>> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 16:34 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Still leaves my bid of i. I’m kind of curious about the ruling about > that, but I’m happy to (attempt to) retract one or both of my bids if > that’s what everyone would prefer. I'd strongly suspect that we don't treat imaginary bids as being real. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
Isn't the implication there that you should appeal it if you're not happy with it? On 2018-02-09 11:38, Cuddle Beam wrote: I'll retract my bids if G. cards themselves for pulling this: Trivial auction breaking spoils everyone's fun. Really. And "I might as well" directly break a rule is a terrible attitude to bring to the game, and doesn't Treat Agora Right. This deserves a strong penalty. You were testing, I was testing... Citing the rule specifically such that a ruling on whether it was appropriate would be specific to cause, and choosing a card to make it worth contesting. I hope to believe in the future that cardings/fingerpointings from G. are for legitimate game health reasons and not for taunting people to further personal agendas (as interesting as the points sought may be). On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: Still leaves my bid of i. I’m kind of curious about the ruling about that, but I’m happy to (attempt to) retract one or both of my bids if that’s what everyone would prefer. Gaelan On Feb 8, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote: So what's the status on the remaining two auctions now? I was hoping to make a serious bid on them. :( Here's how fun's not *entirely* broken: You can still place lower bids. And CuddleBeam *might* be able to retract eir bid (I think e can, because that doesn't outright conflict with the zombie auction rule). Players may wish to think about making support for Throwing the Book at CuddleBeam somehow conditional on whether e withdraws those bids...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
You could look at comparing the real component only (which would give it a size of 0), or perhaps taking the modulus (which would give it a size of 1). I'd suggest withdrawing it lest you meet the same fate as Cuddlebeam, though. On 2018-02-09 11:34, Gaelan Steele wrote: Still leaves my bid of i. I’m kind of curious about the ruling about that, but I’m happy to (attempt to) retract one or both of my bids if that’s what everyone would prefer. Gaelan On Feb 8, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote: So what's the status on the remaining two auctions now? I was hoping to make a serious bid on them. :( Here's how fun's not *entirely* broken: You can still place lower bids. And CuddleBeam *might* be able to retract eir bid (I think e can, because that doesn't outright conflict with the zombie auction rule). Players may wish to think about making support for Throwing the Book at CuddleBeam somehow conditional on whether e withdraws those bids...
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
I'll retract my bids if G. cards themselves for pulling this: > Trivial auction breaking spoils everyone's fun. Really. And "I might > as well" directly break a rule is a terrible attitude to bring to the > game, and doesn't Treat Agora Right. This deserves a strong penalty. > You were testing, I was testing... Citing the rule specifically such that > a ruling on whether it was appropriate would be specific to cause, and > choosing a card to make it worth contesting. I hope to believe in the future that cardings/fingerpointings from G. are for legitimate game health reasons and not for taunting people to further personal agendas (as interesting as the points sought may be). On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Still leaves my bid of i. I’m kind of curious about the ruling about that, > but I’m happy to (attempt to) retract one or both of my bids if that’s what > everyone would prefer. > > Gaelan > > > On Feb 8, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote: > >> So what's the status on the remaining two auctions now? > >> I was hoping to make a serious bid on them. :( > > > > Here's how fun's not *entirely* broken: > > > > You can still place lower bids. > > > > And CuddleBeam *might* be able to retract eir bid (I think e > > can, because that doesn't outright conflict with the zombie > > auction rule). > > > > Players may wish to think about making support for Throwing > > the Book at CuddleBeam somehow conditional on whether e withdraws > > those bids... > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
Still leaves my bid of i. I’m kind of curious about the ruling about that, but I’m happy to (attempt to) retract one or both of my bids if that’s what everyone would prefer. Gaelan > On Feb 8, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote: >> So what's the status on the remaining two auctions now? >> I was hoping to make a serious bid on them. :( > > Here's how fun's not *entirely* broken: > > You can still place lower bids. > > And CuddleBeam *might* be able to retract eir bid (I think e > can, because that doesn't outright conflict with the zombie > auction rule). > > Players may wish to think about making support for Throwing > the Book at CuddleBeam somehow conditional on whether e withdraws > those bids... > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote: > So what's the status on the remaining two auctions now? > I was hoping to make a serious bid on them. :( Here's how fun's not *entirely* broken: You can still place lower bids. And CuddleBeam *might* be able to retract eir bid (I think e can, because that doesn't outright conflict with the zombie auction rule). Players may wish to think about making support for Throwing the Book at CuddleBeam somehow conditional on whether e withdraws those bids...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
So what's the status on the remaining two auctions now? I was hoping to make a serious bid on them. :( On 2018-02-09 11:04, Cuddle Beam wrote: Using the guise of "breaking fun" to test something? Well, alright. I appreciate the lack of book-throwing. On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: You were testing, I was testing... Citing the rule specifically such that a ruling on whether it was appropriate would be specific to cause, and choosing a card to make it worth contesting. The Zombie Auction version doesn't make it possible to withdraw bids, so I don't know if that would work No clue. On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: I find that I broke R2550 a bit weird, because I was relying on your very on argument of " You could bid anything and say "hey, a rule change might make it possible, you never know." If you want to Card me for "breaking fun", sure, but then state it as such and not R2550. Because hey, a rule change might make it possible, you never know. (Also, I was planning on retracting that and bidding for real to win the auction but oh well.) On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the first auction. I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the second auction. I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the third auction. I deputize for the Referee to impose judgement on cuddlebeam for the first finger-pointing: Trivial auction breaking spoils everyone's fun. Really. And "I might as well" directly break a rule is a terrible attitude to bring to the game, and doesn't Treat Agora Right. This deserves a strong penalty. Red Card. On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: Might as well: I bid an amount equal to the cardinality of the set of all Natural numbers (aleph-zero), on each auction On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: What does “winning” mean, anyway? I bid i shinies (i.e. sqrt(-1)) on each auction. Gaelan On Feb 8, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: I bid π shinies on each auction. Gaelan If this is auction is governed by R2550, then this likely break a SHALL NOT: A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it would be impossible for em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the Auction. If this auction is governed by R1885, then this might be a failed bid attempt, depending on whether "CAN bid a number of Shinies" implicitly requires the number to be shiny-quantized to be successful. Higher bids have been received so I'm ignoring the whole thing, this is more pointing out the difficulties if there's a "winning" non-positive integer bid.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
Using the guise of "breaking fun" to test something? Well, alright. I appreciate the lack of book-throwing. On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > You were testing, I was testing... Citing the rule specifically such that > a ruling on whether it was appropriate would be specific to cause, and > choosing a card to make it worth contesting. > > The Zombie Auction version doesn't make it possible to withdraw bids, > so I don't know if that would work No clue. > > On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > I find that I broke R2550 a bit weird, because I was relying on your very > > on argument of " You could bid anything and say "hey, a rule change might > > make it possible, you never know." > > > > If you want to Card me for "breaking fun", sure, but then state it as > such > > and not R2550. > > > > Because hey, a rule change might make it possible, you never know. > > > > (Also, I was planning on retracting that and bidding for real to win the > > auction but oh well.) > > > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the first > > > auction. > > > I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the second > > > auction. > > > I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the third > > > auction. > > > > > > I deputize for the Referee to impose judgement on cuddlebeam for the > first > > > finger-pointing: > > > > > > Trivial auction breaking spoils everyone's fun. Really. And "I > might > > > as well" directly break a rule is a terrible attitude to bring to > the > > > game, and doesn't Treat Agora Right. This deserves a strong > penalty. > > > > > > Red Card. > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > > Might as well: > > > > > > > > I bid an amount equal to the cardinality of the set of all Natural > > > numbers > > > > (aleph-zero), on each auction > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Gaelan Steele > wrote: > > > > > > > > > What does “winning” mean, anyway? > > > > > > > > > > I bid i shinies (i.e. sqrt(-1)) on each auction. > > > > > > > > > > Gaelan > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Kerim Aydin > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > > > >> I bid π shinies on each auction. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Gaelan > > > > > > > > > > > > If this is auction is governed by R2550, then this likely break a > > > SHALL > > > > > NOT: > > > > > > A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it would be > impossible > > > for > > > > > > em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the Auction. > > > > > > > > > > > > If this auction is governed by R1885, then this might be a > failed bid > > > > > > attempt, depending on whether "CAN bid a number of Shinies" > > > implicitly > > > > > > requires the number to be shiny-quantized to be successful. > > > > > > > > > > > > Higher bids have been received so I'm ignoring the whole thing, > this > > > is > > > > > > more pointing out the difficulties if there's a "winning" > > > non-positive > > > > > > integer bid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
Oh sorry, meant to mention... Not supporting any book-throwing efforts here atm. On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > You were testing, I was testing... Citing the rule specifically such that > a ruling on whether it was appropriate would be specific to cause, and > choosing a card to make it worth contesting. > > The Zombie Auction version doesn't make it possible to withdraw bids, > so I don't know if that would work No clue. > > On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > I find that I broke R2550 a bit weird, because I was relying on your very > > on argument of " You could bid anything and say "hey, a rule change might > > make it possible, you never know." > > > > If you want to Card me for "breaking fun", sure, but then state it as such > > and not R2550. > > > > Because hey, a rule change might make it possible, you never know. > > > > (Also, I was planning on retracting that and bidding for real to win the > > auction but oh well.) > > > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the first > > > auction. > > > I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the second > > > auction. > > > I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the third > > > auction. > > > > > > I deputize for the Referee to impose judgement on cuddlebeam for the first > > > finger-pointing: > > > > > > Trivial auction breaking spoils everyone's fun. Really. And "I might > > > as well" directly break a rule is a terrible attitude to bring to the > > > game, and doesn't Treat Agora Right. This deserves a strong penalty. > > > > > > Red Card. > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > > Might as well: > > > > > > > > I bid an amount equal to the cardinality of the set of all Natural > > > numbers > > > > (aleph-zero), on each auction > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > > > > > > > What does “winning” mean, anyway? > > > > > > > > > > I bid i shinies (i.e. sqrt(-1)) on each auction. > > > > > > > > > > Gaelan > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Kerim Aydin > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > > > >> I bid π shinies on each auction. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Gaelan > > > > > > > > > > > > If this is auction is governed by R2550, then this likely break a > > > SHALL > > > > > NOT: > > > > > > A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it would be impossible > > > for > > > > > > em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the Auction. > > > > > > > > > > > > If this auction is governed by R1885, then this might be a failed > > > > > > bid > > > > > > attempt, depending on whether "CAN bid a number of Shinies" > > > implicitly > > > > > > requires the number to be shiny-quantized to be successful. > > > > > > > > > > > > Higher bids have been received so I'm ignoring the whole thing, this > > > is > > > > > > more pointing out the difficulties if there's a "winning" > > > non-positive > > > > > > integer bid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
You were testing, I was testing... Citing the rule specifically such that a ruling on whether it was appropriate would be specific to cause, and choosing a card to make it worth contesting. The Zombie Auction version doesn't make it possible to withdraw bids, so I don't know if that would work No clue. On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I find that I broke R2550 a bit weird, because I was relying on your very > on argument of " You could bid anything and say "hey, a rule change might > make it possible, you never know." > > If you want to Card me for "breaking fun", sure, but then state it as such > and not R2550. > > Because hey, a rule change might make it possible, you never know. > > (Also, I was planning on retracting that and bidding for real to win the > auction but oh well.) > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the first > > auction. > > I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the second > > auction. > > I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the third > > auction. > > > > I deputize for the Referee to impose judgement on cuddlebeam for the first > > finger-pointing: > > > > Trivial auction breaking spoils everyone's fun. Really. And "I might > > as well" directly break a rule is a terrible attitude to bring to the > > game, and doesn't Treat Agora Right. This deserves a strong penalty. > > > > Red Card. > > > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > Might as well: > > > > > > I bid an amount equal to the cardinality of the set of all Natural > > numbers > > > (aleph-zero), on each auction > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > > > > > What does “winning” mean, anyway? > > > > > > > > I bid i shinies (i.e. sqrt(-1)) on each auction. > > > > > > > > Gaelan > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Kerim Aydin > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > > >> I bid π shinies on each auction. > > > > >> > > > > >> Gaelan > > > > > > > > > > If this is auction is governed by R2550, then this likely break a > > SHALL > > > > NOT: > > > > > A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it would be impossible > > for > > > > > em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the Auction. > > > > > > > > > > If this auction is governed by R1885, then this might be a failed bid > > > > > attempt, depending on whether "CAN bid a number of Shinies" > > implicitly > > > > > requires the number to be shiny-quantized to be successful. > > > > > > > > > > Higher bids have been received so I'm ignoring the whole thing, this > > is > > > > > more pointing out the difficulties if there's a "winning" > > non-positive > > > > > integer bid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
I find that I broke R2550 a bit weird, because I was relying on your very on argument of " You could bid anything and say "hey, a rule change might make it possible, you never know." If you want to Card me for "breaking fun", sure, but then state it as such and not R2550. Because hey, a rule change might make it possible, you never know. (Also, I was planning on retracting that and bidding for real to win the auction but oh well.) On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the first > auction. > I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the second > auction. > I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the third > auction. > > I deputize for the Referee to impose judgement on cuddlebeam for the first > finger-pointing: > > Trivial auction breaking spoils everyone's fun. Really. And "I might > as well" directly break a rule is a terrible attitude to bring to the > game, and doesn't Treat Agora Right. This deserves a strong penalty. > > Red Card. > > On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > Might as well: > > > > I bid an amount equal to the cardinality of the set of all Natural > numbers > > (aleph-zero), on each auction > > > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > > > What does “winning” mean, anyway? > > > > > > I bid i shinies (i.e. sqrt(-1)) on each auction. > > > > > > Gaelan > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > >> I bid π shinies on each auction. > > > >> > > > >> Gaelan > > > > > > > > If this is auction is governed by R2550, then this likely break a > SHALL > > > NOT: > > > > A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it would be impossible > for > > > > em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the Auction. > > > > > > > > If this auction is governed by R1885, then this might be a failed bid > > > > attempt, depending on whether "CAN bid a number of Shinies" > implicitly > > > > requires the number to be shiny-quantized to be successful. > > > > > > > > Higher bids have been received so I'm ignoring the whole thing, this > is > > > > more pointing out the difficulties if there's a "winning" > non-positive > > > > integer bid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Josh T wrote: > I flip my Master switch to myself. Sorry folks, been busy but not quite > enough to be undead just yet. > > 天火狐 R1885, which has the highest power in this stuff, is clear that this terminates the auction immediately with "no winner" - I'm assuming that's the result unless there's a CFJ, but seems straightforward enough...
