DIS: Re: BUS: Karma time
This is not a Notice of Honour BUT IF IT WERE: +1 Cuddlebeam for coming up with inventive ways to use contracts -1 Telnaior for being a poor sport On 2/1/19 11:28 PM, Telnaior wrote: This is a Notice of Honour. Agora gains 1 karma for being "positively ancient". Cuddle Beam loses 1 karma for making a ridiculous contract. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer becomes an automated victory dispensing machine
Fuck lmao. There goes that idea. Thanks for pointing it out. On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:56 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > Note that I can have others send the attack Energy message on my behalf, > > and it's not obligatory for the sender of the attack Energy to > _understand > > their own message_. > > [...]; in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another > person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that > might be taken within a message. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. >
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer becomes an automated victory dispensing machine
I just realized that I forgot to include the money-input part lol. Oh well, just tip me or something. On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:51 PM Cuddle Beam wrote: > WOO! Ever wanted to win Agora? Well now you can, for just 10 coins! Woohoo! > *Vuvuzela sounds* > > Note that I can have others send the attack Energy message on my behalf, > and it's not obligatory for the sender of the attack Energy to _understand > their own message_. > > Also, I don't think I should be able to say beforehand the amount of Energy > I'm attacking with? I think?? Anyways, nothing impedes me from putting > totally insane penalties on myself if I attack with any Energy amounts > other than 0. > > I'm not saying that I will attack with an Energy amount other than 0 - I > still totally could. But, if I do, I will seriously fuck myself. > > I agree to the contract below. > > ---*--- > > =CUDDLEBEAM'S (PRETTY SLOW) VICTORY DISPENSING MACHINE= > > Any player can become a member of this contract by agreeing to be bound by > all of its content. > > Cuddlebeam doesn't agree to be the ally of any member of this contract, for > the purpose of rule 2593. > > If Cuddlebeam, via being acted behalf upon by this contact, uses an amount > of Energy other than 0 for a Space Battle, any member of this contract can > transfer any amount of any of Cuddlebeam's assets to themselves. > > If a member of this contact in a Space Battle initiated via "Getting a Free > Win" uses an amount of Energy other than 1 for that Space Battle, any > member of this contract can transfer any amount of any of that person's > assets to themselves. > > Any member of this contact can and is allowed to do the action of "Getting > a Free Win", via performing the following, all in the same message, by > acting on behalf of Cuddlebeam while having a Space Ship that can initiate > a battle against Cuddlebeam's ship: > > - Repair Cuddlebeam's Spaceship, if the Spaceship is repairable. > - Have Cuddlebeam Initiate a Space Battle against them (the member of the > contract performing this), with the Astronomor as the resolver. > - Privately inform the Astronomor the following as the declaration of the > Energy to be used during that Space Battle: > > "The amount of energy I use during the battle will be the following number, > translated according to the first cipher "MUSCULARBUTTCHEEKS" which > Cuddlebeam has sent to you: X" > > With X being 8,008,135 multiplied by the amount of days that have passed > since the 1st of January 2019. > > Any member of this contract can stop being a member of this contact by > announcement, provided that they haven't used any of its powers within 24 > hours. > ---*--- >
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer becomes an automated victory dispensing machine
On Fri, 1 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote: Note that I can have others send the attack Energy message on my behalf, and it's not obligatory for the sender of the attack Energy to _understand their own message_. [...]; in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that might be taken within a message. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vigilante time
Since I brought up the other communications-related CFJs today, a note/ gratuitous argument on this one: If the rules are "a person CAN do X by announcement" the "action by announcement" standard is entirely in R478: a person performs that action by unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. Our current precedents around R478 on its own are that "clearly specify" might include references, indirect quantities like "all", or maybe minor mistakes, etc., as long as it's reasonably unambiguous what action was being intended.[1] This case is a "by announcement" like that. (not saying that this communication does or doesn't meet the standard, just pointing it out). The actions I raised earlier today were a bit different: there, each rule listed explicit information that had to be included in the message, e.g. "state how many assets e earns" for Rewards or "include that it's act-on-behalf in the message" (for acting on behalf of persons - doesn't apply to spaceships). [1] This didn't used to be the case. Judge Elysion, in CFJ 1307, explicitly found that the common dictionary definition of "specify" meant that references like "all" wouldn't work. This was never explicitly overturned, we just forgot about/ignored this precedent in CFJs of the last few years. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1307 On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 9:47 AM Cuddle Beam wrote: > I could possibly scrap more people's actions/battle attempts with this but > I can't be assed to dig through emails. > > > I spend 3 energy to move to sector (4->5 5->6 6->7). > > It's not players who spend energy to move, it's ships. And you can cause > the ship to make a payment to move. > > From Rule 2592/0: > > Any player CAN, by announcement, cause a Pilotable Spaceship e > owns to pay 1 Energy to move to a Sector adjacent to its Location. > > I CFJ: Gaelan's (only) ship is at Sector 4. > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:59 PM Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > Good catch. I initiate a space battle with twg, to be resolved by D. > > Margaux. > > > > Gaelan > > > > > On Jan 30, 2019, at 9:15 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > > > FWIW, I think this is ineffective because it does not specify the > > resolver > > > > > >> On Jan 30, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > >> > > >> I spend 3 energy to move to sector (4->5 5->6 6->7). > > >> > > >> I initiate a space battle with twg. > > >> > > >> Contract under rules should twg accept: the parties SHALL, in a timely > > fashion after agreement of this contract, communicate their energy > > expenditure to the battle’s resolver in a private email containing their > > desired expenditure as a positive integer, expressed as one or two Arabic > > numerals. > > >> > > >> Gaelan > > > > >
Re: DIS: treating wins via cheating?
On 2/1/2019 8:03 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 07:59 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: Example: While a player is the only active first-class player not to satisfy at least one Losing Condition, e satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude. Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning Condition again until at least one other player ceases to satisfy any Losing Condition. Note that this specific cleanup procedure was broken in a fairly simple way. That's why I have two wins by Solitude, not just one. (...) I guess that puts bounds on "pretty well" when I said it seemed to work worked pretty well :P
Re: DIS: treating wins via cheating?
On Fri, 2019-02-01 at 07:59 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Example: >While a player is the only active first-class player not to >satisfy at least one Losing Condition, e satisfies the Winning >Condition of Solitude. > >Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning >Condition again until at least one other player ceases to >satisfy any Losing Condition. Note that this specific cleanup procedure was broken in a fairly simple way. That's why I have two wins by Solitude, not just one. -- ais523
Re: DIS: treating wins via cheating?
On 1/31/2019 10:31 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: I'd like to work on this. With regard to looping wins, I think we should give some people some sort of additional prize, probably in the form of a patent title, for proving that they *could* win an infinite (or finite but very large) number of times. What about Infinite Jestor/Jester? Just as some food for thought, the "cleanup procedure" we had at one point seemed to work pretty well. From R2186/9, circa 2010: Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win the game: a) For each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one of those persons, its cleanup procedure (if any) occurs. b) Each of those persons ceases to satisfy any Winning Conditions. Example: While a player is the only active first-class player not to satisfy at least one Losing Condition, e satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude. Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning Condition again until at least one other player ceases to satisfy any Losing Condition. Or: If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for Ribbons, then upon a win announcement that one or more players each possess at least one Ribbon of each such color, all those players satisfy the Winning Condition of Renaissance. Cleanup procedure: For each of those players, one Ribbon of each such color in eir possession is destroyed.
