Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
On 1/16/2019 5:37 AM, D. Margaux wrote:> >> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> Hold on, isn't that exactly what happened here? "rau" is effectively (if >> we strip away all the fluff about constructed languages, which was a fun >> excuse but isn't really relevant) a secret code devised for communication >> between the resolver (me) and the person who first used it in a public >> message (coincidentally, also me). Thanks for clarifying the issue twg - I was treating it generically, and didn't look closely enough about who was purporting to communicate with whom. Will reconsider. > I think this is different. If you said, “I communicated a number to > myself, on pain of no faking,” I think that would maybe be valid. But as I > understood it, you said “the number is rau,” with rau being a word in a > private language that seemingly has no fixed meaning to translate into > English. So I think that’s the same as no choice all. Well, there's a balance to be struck between accepting a person's word always, and requiring, as a general principle, some kind of standards of evidence so a person in this situation doesn't have a consistent advantage/ temptation. In the past, a couple times, I remember sending a "private email to myself" to timestamp a private game-affecting transaction. I don't like requiring such things for the same reason I don't like requiring random dice rolls to be verifiable, but maybe in this situation the court should impose such requirements. Hopefully that would be temporary, the best solution would be to legislatively remove situations where "communicating to oneself" (even through proxies) is a valid and legal move.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8143-8145 and 8142
On 1/16/2019 12:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > No, there's no need. I initiate an election for Assessor, beginning the > nomination period. This is a bad enough mistake (considering it's actually > the second time I've made it recently) that I don't think it would be > right for me to continue in the position. Even if I made that pledge, > nobody would trust me, and rightly so. Honestly, this rose to the "everyone is tempted and gets one warning" stage for me. Maybe accompanied by some sharing of your profit with Trigon if that's appropriate compensation.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8143-8145 and 8142
> On Jan 16, 2019, at 3:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Even if I made that pledge, nobody would trust me, and rightly so. FWIW, I would trust you if you made that pledge. Theoretically, the pledge has a loophole if you’re the Referee, since you could decide any pointer finger regarding that pledge yourself. To make the pledge more airtight, you could also pledge that, if you remain as Referee at the time any finger is pointed for an alleged violation of the pledge, you would appoint the holder of the Arbitor’s office to act on your behalf to be investigator. (If you broke THAT pledge, I think that would be a violation related to your duties as referee, which the Arbitor could then investigate be announcement.)
DIS: Space Battle 0002
I note that G. has privately communicated to me the amount of energy e wishes to spend in this battle. > On Jan 15, 2019, at 9:02 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > And, revision: > > - SPACE BATTLE 0002 - > 2019-01-15 - UNRESOLVED > SECTOR 07 > Aggressor: twg VS. Defender: G. > Energy: ?? Energy: ?? >Resolver: D. Margaux > > -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Hold on, isn't that exactly what happened here? "rau" is effectively (if we > strip away all the fluff about constructed languages, which was a fun excuse > but isn't really relevant) a secret code devised for communication between > the resolver (me) and the person who first used it in a public message > (coincidentally, also me). I think this is different. If you said, “I communicated a number to myself, on pain of no faking,” I think that would maybe be valid. But as I understood it, you said “the number is rau,” with rau being a word in a private language that seemingly has no fixed meaning to translate into English. So I think that’s the same as no choice all. > > If the original attempt failed at all, I would have expected it to be because > of R2466's prohibition of sending-messages-on-behalf. I realise that > contradicts CFJ 3649 but to be honest I'm not 100% certain, in hindsight, > that that judgement was correct anyway. I agree that CFJ 3649 is poorly reasoned and probably shouldn’t be followed. It’s not obvious that the judge of that CFJ knew of the prohibition against sending messages when “acting on behalf.”
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 12:48 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Of course, if one of the Agorans is possessed of private information (e.g. a > code arranged with the resolver ahead of time, that e understands), this is > trivial to arrange, as it becomes "a typical Agoran with information X > understands X, something that a typical Agoran without information X doesn't > understand". Which makes perfect sense. Hold on, isn't that exactly what happened here? "rau" is effectively (if we strip away all the fluff about constructed languages, which was a fun excuse but isn't really relevant) a secret code devised for communication between the resolver (me) and the person who first used it in a public message (coincidentally, also me). If the original attempt failed at all, I would have expected it to be because of R2466's prohibition of sending-messages-on-behalf. I realise that contradicts CFJ 3649 but to be honest I'm not 100% certain, in hindsight, that that judgement was correct anyway. -twg
