Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 04/08/2013 10:27 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: (Professor Quirrell had remarked over their lunch that Harry really needed to conceal his state of mind better than putting on a blank face when someone discussed a dangerous topic, and had explained about one-level deceptions, two-level deceptions, and so on. So either Severus was in fact modeling Harry as a one-level player, which made Severus himself two-level, and Harry's three-level move had been successful; or Severus was a four-level player and wanted Harry to think the deception had been successful. Harry, smiling, had asked Professor Quirrell what level he played at, and Professor Quirrell, also smiling, had responded, One level higher than you.) -- /Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality/ Except I've spent the last few years building up an immunity to Iocaine powder. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BattleOfWits
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 04/08/2013 12:39 PM, omd wrote: But to reiterate one last time, after which I will verily shut up and wait for a judge to be assigned: Agora necessarily must proceed according to consensus; we have a formal procedure to arrive at a consensus, which is reasonably fair; One more CoE: As we see, people appeal judgements out of spite, and I expect they pass judgements out of spite as well. In fact, in a discussion some time ago it was already mentioned that this was expected in dictatorship cases. I think even it was you that said it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 6 August 2013 01:25, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: One more CoE: As we see, people appeal judgements out of spite, and I expect they pass judgements out of spite as well. In fact, in a discussion some time ago it was already mentioned that this was expected in dictatorship cases. I think even it was you that said it. Oh, please just go away.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: One more CoE: As we see, people appeal judgements out of spite, and I expect they pass judgements out of spite as well. In fact, in a discussion some time ago it was already mentioned that this was expected in dictatorship cases. I think even it was you that said it. I'd say that judgements on scam cases do tend to be biased against the scamsters, and from time to time I've thought that unfortunate. On the other hand, I've also looked back at interpretations that had seemed almost certain to me while I was building huge constructs of planned scam actions with them as foundations, and realized that really, from a neutral, reasonable perspective, they were pretty unlikely, if not ridiculous - and observed what I thought to be that tunnel vision in others. I do not claim that you are necessarily affected by this, as certainly the same can apply to other participants in an argument, such as myself (or of course it's not black and white, so we are certainly both affected to some degree) but in general it tends to make judgements look more spiteful then they are. And, perhaps more importantly, this is a democratic nomic (whether formally or informally). If nobody likes your scam out of spite, it's their prerogative to continue playing unreasonably.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 03/08/2013 9:47 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote: The main problem is that you have actively worked to prevent the controversy from being settled, e.g. by attempting to judge the case yourself. I've done nothing to prevent the controversy from being settled. You can surrender anytime!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 03/08/2013 8:32 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: Indeed, there is a proposal now to fix that issue (and, for some reason, despite having first proposed fixing ratification, you've yet to distribute the proposal). Duuuhh okay 8*b Translation for others: a) It's a trap [1]. b) I'm pretty sure Sean knows it [2] and he's playing dumb. c) Sean, omd, et al. should've known that I'd know it. Come on guys, you can do better than that! :) Still, it's fair to ask for me to make my own change to this end. However, I think I should get extra time to do it, since you guys are collaborating and are more experienced, but there's one of me, and I'm a newbie... ;) -Dan [1] I see two ways it's a trap. You may enjoy finding them yourself. [2] That is, at least I'm sure he knows one of the ways I know. I'm not so sure he knows both.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Sunday, August 4, 2013, Fool wrote: On 03/08/2013 9:47 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote: The main problem is that you have actively worked to prevent the controversy from being settled, e.g. by attempting to judge the case yourself. I've done nothing to prevent the controversy from being settled. You can surrender anytime! If it's a joke, okay, not much point in continuing to discuss. ;p But to reiterate one last time, after which I will verily shut up and wait for a judge to be assigned: Agora necessarily must proceed according to consensus; we have a formal procedure to arrive at a consensus, which is reasonably fair; you have apparently decided that you have a better chance at swaying people by challenging the legitimacy of this procedure, causing some degree of informal consensus to be required, which you can affect by loudly repeating your claims in the form of reports and proposals and whatnot; and this I consider unfair and disruptive, and so is my biggest objection to the whole thing.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Sunday, August 4, 2013, Fool wrote: c) Sean, omd, et al. should've known that I'd know it. Come on guys, you can do better than that! :) Don't look at me. I don't consider the dictatorship interpretation viable enough to try to counter-scam (which would've been easy by getting someone to register and repeat the scam, since you messed the original voting results up; dunno if that's fixed by now).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, omd wrote: affect by loudly repeating your claims in the form of reports and proposals and whatnot; and this I consider unfair and disruptive, and so is my biggest objection to the whole thing. To be fair, I think the current culture of self-ratification (broken or not) leads to both sides feeling more of a need to regularly assert claims than in the past.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
This danger doesn't even sound plausible to me. Everyone's confused and goes home, and never comes back? I doubt it. I won't have a keyboard for a few hours but in short, Do you have a plan to return your version of Agora to normalcy reasonably soon? If so, that would be reassuring, modulo other concerns; my main issue here is that unlike any other dictator I can remember, you have attempted to break the game without describing any such plan. Note that I argued in favor of the last attempt to significantly modify the rules via dictatorship. (But that purported dictator did not attempt to break CFJs, and was found to have been unsuccessful.) but since claiming unilateral judgement, especially in this format, does not particularly /aid/ your chances of being accepted, but merely sows discord, I consider it unfortunate that you have elected to do so. Well, my style is entirely consistent with how I've been ruling on CFJs right from the get go, which admittedly has only been 3, but still. So I don't understand this bit either. I considered the existence of the judgement considerably more important than its style Sent from my iPhone
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 04/08/2013 12:45 PM, omd wrote: On Sunday, August 4, 2013, Fool wrote: c) Sean, omd, et al. should've known that I'd know it. Come on guys, you can do better than that! :) Don't look at me. I don't consider the dictatorship interpretation viable enough to try to counter-scam (which would've been easy by getting someone to register and repeat the scam, since you messed the original voting results up; dunno if that's fixed by now). No, the original action itself already included two clauses, I can dergeister everyone and no other person can register. So if the original action succeeded at all, then the counter-scam you describe here wouldn't have worked. Also, I think you knew that. I simply don't believe the interpretation that * You thought you saw an easy way to counter-scam, but you didn't bother, and * Your ratification proposal was an unintentional trap. I find these hard to believe separately!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 04/08/2013 4:05 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote: This danger doesn't even sound plausible to me. Everyone's confused and goes home, and never comes back? I doubt it. I won't have a keyboard for a few hours but in short, Do you have a plan to return your version of Agora to normalcy reasonably soon? If so, that would be reassuring, modulo other concerns; my main issue here is that unlike any other dictator I can remember, you have attempted to break the game without describing any such plan. Can someone tell me what that means? Setting aside the ratification thing, and _on the assumption that my action succeeded_, it's still not clear what to do about it. And yes, I have asked before. I'm asking again. For example, do we think Proposal 7564 is sufficient to plug the hole? Because I'm not getting what it's supposed to do. And I don't remember any other suggestions to plug the hole, though I might have missed something. -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: reasonably soon? If so, that would be reassuring, modulo other concerns; my main issue here is that unlike any other dictator I can remember, you have attempted to break the game without describing any such plan. It means let the rest of us back in. Can someone tell me what that means? Setting aside the ratification thing, and _on the assumption that my action succeeded_, it's still not clear what to do about it. And yes, I have asked before. I'm asking again. For example, do we think Proposal 7564 is sufficient to plug the hole? Because I'm not getting what it's supposed to do. And I don't remember any other suggestions to plug the hole, though I might have missed something. -Dan As the purported only player of Agora, presumably it is incumbent on YOU to fix things. If you're asking for our help, let us play the game again. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: No, the original action itself already included two clauses, I can dergeister everyone and no other person can register. So if the original action succeeded at all, then the counter-scam you describe here wouldn't have worked. Ah, I forgot about that. I blame mobile devices for making it more difficult to look things up (conveniently forgetting to blame myself for attempting to play Agora on them). Also, I think you knew that. I simply don't believe the interpretation that * You thought you saw an easy way to counter-scam, but you didn't bother, and * Your ratification proposal was an unintentional trap. Now, no need to be paranoid. If I knew my claimed counter-scam was invalid, then there would be no point embarrassing myself by claiming it. As for the ratification proposal, I did notice the trap after submitting it when discussing it on IRC, but I wasn't especially concerned about it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 04/08/2013 10:19 PM, omd wrote: On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote: No, the original action itself already included two clauses, I can dergeister everyone and no other person can register. So if the original action succeeded at all, then the counter-scam you describe here wouldn't have worked. Ah, I forgot about that. I blame mobile devices for making it more difficult to look things up (conveniently forgetting to blame myself for attempting to play Agora on them). Also, I think you knew that. I simply don't believe the interpretation that * You thought you saw an easy way to counter-scam, but you didn't bother, and * Your ratification proposal was an unintentional trap. Now, no need to be paranoid. If I knew my claimed counter-scam was invalid, then there would be no point embarrassing myself by claiming it. As for the ratification proposal, I did notice the trap after submitting it when discussing it on IRC, but I wasn't especially concerned about it. Okay, that's a bit more plausible. But then it means Sean's messages trying to get me to pass it was still an intentional trap, unless he wasn't in on this discussion. I think he's on IRC a fair bit though. (Just because I'm paranoid...) Not that I'm saying you shouldn't be setting traps for me.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, that's a bit more plausible. But then it means Sean's messages trying to get me to pass it was still an intentional trap, unless he wasn't in on this discussion. I think he's on IRC a fair bit though. (Just because I'm paranoid...) Not that I'm saying you shouldn't be setting traps for me. (Professor Quirrell had remarked over their lunch that Harry really needed to conceal his state of mind better than putting on a blank face when someone discussed a dangerous topic, and had explained about one-level deceptions, two-level deceptions, and so on. So either Severus was in fact modeling Harry as a one-level player, which made Severus himself two-level, and Harry's three-level move had been successful; or Severus was a four-level player and wanted Harry to think the deception had been successful. Harry, smiling, had asked Professor Quirrell what level he played at, and Professor Quirrell, also smiling, had responded, One level higher than you.) -- /Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
As the purported only player of Agora, presumably it is incumbent on YOU to fix things. Yes, that's fair. If you're asking for our help, let us play the game again. Let you re-register before closing the hole? I think not. :) Well, if you want me to do it without your input, that's fine. I'm sure I can figure something out. I was just asking, eh? -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, that's a bit more plausible. But then it means Sean's messages trying to get me to pass it was still an intentional trap, unless he wasn't in on this discussion. I think he's on IRC a fair bit though. (Just because I'm paranoid...) Not that I'm saying you shouldn't be setting traps for me. Yes, I believe they were. And before the ratification bug came out, I /was/ originally hoping that you might forget to CoE my Registrar's or other reports in a way that would cause players to be ratified back into existence, but I made up my mind since then. ;p
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: For example, do we think Proposal 7564 is sufficient to plug the hole? Because I'm not getting what it's supposed to do. Well, since Machiavelli voted against it and OscarMeyr mass voted against, I think it's failing - perhaps I should have been more explicit and/or explained the proposal in a comment! Basically, it's supposed to ban modus tollens, reasoning based on the law of the excluded middle, etc, allowing only forward reasoning based on the statements in the rules. - But, you say, that's a lot of restriction for a short sentence! Well, I think that in lieu of complicated rules explicitly encouraging indirect logical reasoning (e.g. A player CAN do either A or B), banning it is only what you would do by default in any normal ruleset or legal system (this is part of why I think your scam failed, as I don't think we diverge sufficiently from that standard). We could get more expressive by allowing arbitrary deductions but simply generally banning irrelevant ones (with a notion of relevance that doesn't allow player-submitted statements to cross the gap), but in lieu of said complicated rules there isn't much to differentiate between the two systems. So it isn't really a large leap. - But the argument that Fool is a dictator is (almost) constructive, not dependent on proof by contradiction! In that it (almost) holds in intuitionistic logic, but that produces such weird results that it's hardly related to natural reasoning - at least for the purposes of deciding what is true or not. In English, I'd say that modus tollens is explained as follows: if we can say that if A, B, and B is false, then it would be absurd to say that A is true, because then B would be true, so A is false. Since this is what is banned, I think my wording is enough to prevent modus tollens without forcing us to use any particular formalization of logic. On the other hand, we could also be even more explicit about how restrictive we want to be. - But (you, but probably not Fool, say), restricted logic is weird and can accept paradoxes! I dare you to find something easier to understand that functions correctly. It's significantly less weird than the type of paraconsistent logic I previously proposed. - But it could cause weird results in CFJs... Probably doesn't matter, but could restrict it to reasoning about the rules. -- my fix proposals have a habit of failing omd
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, omd wrote: the lecturer taking the status quo too seriously, and I have received at least one such lecture in the recent past. sorry
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Saturday, August 3, 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: sorry I was referring to the BlogNomic invasion actually :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 02/08/2013 9:42 PM, Max Schutz wrote: I appeal my own case on the grounds that I HAVE NO FREAKING IDEA WHAT'S GOING ON despite me being an elder What's going on is that it turns out NOBODY HAS ANY FREAKING IDEA WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. You thought you had a ratification system going, but it's broken and has been for a while. The question is, as always, who wrote this junk? Well, for something so important and such a long timescale, anybody who's been around for a while becomes guilty. What's around for a while? I'm not so sure. I sort of arbitrarily picked has ever been an Elder as a sensible dividing line (4 months total, 1 month continuous), but I'm open to reconsideration. -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 02/08/2013 10:06 PM, Alex Smith wrote: On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 21:54 -0400, Max Schutz wrote: On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Elliott Hirdpenguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 3 August 2013 02:32, Alex Smithais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement using the mechanism in rule 911. I support. if this gets my name off that list of guilty then i support it too this is insane I do so. Nttpf, as was Max's support.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 03/08/2013 1:42 PM, omd wrote: On Saturday, August 3, 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: sorry I was referring to the BlogNomic invasion actually :) Wow, this is funny. Maybe I should have given you the recruitment reward after all!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 02/08/2013 11:49 PM, omd wrote: Although it appears to be more difficult than we had previously assumed to formalize the logic of the rules, there are several possibilities that have been posited in the last few days - some do not work, but some do. I must have missed it then Admittedly, there were a lot of messages. Nor has anyone even responded to the non-logical side of the argument. Although it is unlikely that Rule 101 truly affects anything, attempting to take over the game without any indication of plans to restore it is fairly[1] rude, as the danger is that (whether legally as per your argument or simply because confusion as to the correct interpretation causes an exodus of players) you will bring an abrupt halt to a game that has been played more or less continuously for 20 years; this seems unlikely at the moment, but the attempt to do so still rankles, and certainly affects Rule 217's notion of the best interests of hte game. This danger doesn't even sound plausible to me. Everyone's confused and goes home, and never comes back? I doubt it. but since claiming unilateral judgement, especially in this format, does not particularly /aid/ your chances of being accepted, but merely sows discord, I consider it unfortunate that you have elected to do so. Well, my style is entirely consistent with how I've been ruling on CFJs right from the get go, which admittedly has only been 3, but still. So I don't understand this bit either. Note that in Lindrum's famous scam, the judgement was required for the scam to work; not so here. (Lindrum, for eir part, made clear from the start that e intended to continue Nomic World as a nomic [albeit in a different form], and did not attempt to kick out any players.) I'll reply to this separately. Now. It does occur to me that a lecture about good form in an online email game (especially one whose recipient is attempting to claim said game in the name of a cat) can often reasonably be interpreted as the lecturer taking the status quo too seriously, and I have received at least one such lecture in the recent past. On the other hand, in my perception the threatened harm in that case was considerably less, although at least some players probably misunderstood... well, while I do not wish to overly second-guess your motivations, I think you have objectively acted more aggressively, and that this response is thus warranted.If, looking back on this, we should think otherwise, well, where would the fun be without an antagonist? Oh, absolutely. Of course I want an antagonist or ten. Back at you: where would the fun be without an antagonist? Cheers, -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 4 August 2013 00:22, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: This danger doesn't even sound plausible to me. Everyone's confused and goes home, and never comes back? I doubt it. More likely is that everyone gets sick of you acquiring and maintaining your dictatorship in ways that go quite strongly against tradition in terms of the limitations of scams (especially dictatorial ones) and the spirit of the game, and stop fighting it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
alright through what rule/protocol did fool claim the game On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 4 August 2013 00:22, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: This danger doesn't even sound plausible to me. Everyone's confused and goes home, and never comes back? I doubt it. More likely is that everyone gets sick of you acquiring and maintaining your dictatorship in ways that go quite strongly against tradition in terms of the limitations of scams (especially dictatorial ones) and the spirit of the game, and stop fighting it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 03/08/2013 7:34 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: On 4 August 2013 00:22, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote: This danger doesn't even sound plausible to me. Everyone's confused and goes home, and never comes back? I doubt it. More likely is that everyone gets sick of you acquiring and maintaining your dictatorship in ways that go quite strongly against tradition in terms of the limitations of scams (especially dictatorial ones) and the spirit of the game, and stop fighting it. I even asked about this. Alex Smith suggested that I had until the controversy was settled to dispose of my dictatorship. Is that not tradition? Is the controversy settled then?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:03 PM, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: You can purportedly keep your dictatorship without purportedly preventing the normal play of Agora from continuing. - woggle Or you can sit around and let us not do anything in -game, letting the rest of us reconstruct elements of game state from when ratification was broken and use that to find an inevitable hole in your scam. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 03/08/2013 8:05 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:03 PM, wogglewoggl...@gmail.com wrote: You can purportedly keep your dictatorship without purportedly preventing the normal play of Agora from continuing. - woggle Or you can sit around and let us not do anything in -game, letting the rest of us reconstruct elements of game state from when ratification was broken and use that to find an inevitable hole in your scam. Exactly, I tend to agree with Sean. I'm not sure there is even a normal play of Agora at this point, independent of my scam.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: Exactly, I tend to agree with Sean. I'm not sure there is even a normal play of Agora at this point, independent of my scam. Oh, I didn't mean I want you to do that, inasmuch as it give us a better chance of actually defeating your scam rather than waiting for you to give it up (presumably with some trophy). -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Sat, 3 Aug 2013, Fool wrote: On 03/08/2013 7:34 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: On 4 August 2013 00:22, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote: This danger doesn't even sound plausible to me. Everyone's confused and goes home, and never comes back? I doubt it. More likely is that everyone gets sick of you acquiring and maintaining your dictatorship in ways that go quite strongly against tradition in terms of the limitations of scams (especially dictatorial ones) and the spirit of the game, and stop fighting it. I even asked about this. Alex Smith suggested that I had until the controversy was settled to dispose of my dictatorship. Is that not tradition? Is the controversy settled then? Best form, fwiw, is to implement and dispose of your power swiftly (Eg within a set of messages all in sequence), minimizing game disruption. For a scam a couple years back where I deregistered everyone, I did so, fixed the problem, gave myself and helpers patent titles, and rebooted back to where we were in a couple messages. If it had been judged a failure, the only thing that would have to be rewound would have been the single fix proposal and the titles. Even so, at least 1 or 2 people were annoyed enough to quit iirc. Note: not criticizing or lecturing here (trying not to anyway), just relaying how to minimize getting people het up if they are inclined to do so.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 03/08/2013 8:17 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Foolfool1...@gmail.com wrote: Exactly, I tend to agree with Sean. I'm not sure there is even a normal play of Agora at this point, independent of my scam. Oh, I didn't mean I want you to do that, inasmuch as it give us a better chance of actually defeating your scam rather than waiting for you to give it up (presumably with some trophy). -scshunt Oh, you mean you were BLUFFING?! Heavens. Disappointed, but not surprised. -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On 03/08/2013 8:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: For a scam a couple years back where I deregistered everyone, I did so, fixed the problem, gave myself and helpers patent titles, and rebooted back to where we were in a couple messages. If it had been judged a failure, the only thing that would have to be rewound would have been the single fix proposal and the titles. For starters, if I go back to where we were, it would a) leave the loophole open, and b) uhh... where the heck were we, anyway? Nothing's ratified for years, and that ain't my fault. Even so, at least 1 or 2 people were annoyed enough to quit iirc. I see. I wonder if they came back. When was this, incidentally? Note: not criticizing or lecturing here (trying not to anyway), just relaying how to minimize getting people het up if they are inclined to do so. Understood. For the record, I'm okay with criticism and lecture. Even heckling. -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Aug 3, 2013 8:28 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/08/2013 8:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: For a scam a couple years back where I deregistered everyone, I did so, fixed the problem, gave myself and helpers patent titles, and rebooted back to where we were in a couple messages. If it had been judged a failure, the only thing that would have to be rewound would have been the single fix proposal and the titles. For starters, if I go back to where we were, it would a) leave the loophole open, and b) uhh... where the heck were we, anyway? Nothing's ratified for years, and that ain't my fault. You purportedly possess the authority to change that. And no, nothing has ratified for years, but that's easy to solve. Indeed, there is a proposal now to fix that issue (and, for some reason, despite having first proposed fixing ratification, you've yet to distribute the proposal). -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Sat, 3 Aug 2013, Fool wrote: I see. I wonder if they came back. When was this, incidentally? Had to check. Proposal 6959 resolved jan 31, 2011 ( looks like I lied, it started a few days earlier as it needed a minimal voting period to resolve). Incidentally to a parallel discussion here, it looks like it was closely followed by proposal 6961 that repealed 52 rules at once. Guess cleanup does happen now and again...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
The main problem is that you have actively worked to prevent the controversy from being settled, e.g. by attempting to judge the case yourself. Sent from my iPhone I even asked about this. Alex Smith suggested that I had until the controversy was settled to dispose of my dictatorship. Is that not tradition? Is the controversy settled then?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381
On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 21:54 -0400, Max Schutz wrote: On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 3 August 2013 02:32, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement using the mechanism in rule 911. I support. if this gets my name off that list of guilty then i support it too this is insane I do so. -- ais523
