date:20190724


That's fine, I think everyone needs a break from this :).

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 10:21 PM, Rebecca wrote:

Ill do this but i have to see my psychologist and go home first lol, i am
sorry!

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:


Okay, let's recreate this:


Beginning:

- No Space Battle btw. you and me. Fames are 0


After https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
-business/2019-July/041060.html :

- 0 space battles, because that didn't work

- 2 spaceships


After https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
-business/2019-July/041062.html :

- 1 Space Battle (#0).

- You spent 0 energy

- 2 spaceships, both in battle


After https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
-business/2019-July/041067.html :

- 1 Space Battle

- I spent 1 energy


After https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
-business/2019-July/041071.html :

- INEFFECTIVE resolution

- Space Battle #0: no spaceships. I spent 1, you spent 0, but neither
works.

- Space Battle #1: two spaceships, no spending


After https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
-business/2019-July/041072.html :

- Space Battle #0: no spaceships. I spent 1, you spent 0, but neither
works.

- Space Battle #1: two spaceships, I spent 1, you did not publicly state
amount spent.


So, conclusively (I think):

- Resolve Space Battle #0 (the one with no spaceships): No energy/armour
changes, no fame changes (I'm at 0), no winner.

- Publicly state that you spend 1 energy on Space Battle #1.

- Resolve space battle #1 normally.


Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 10:08 PM, Rebecca wrote:


I pfed the second resolution though didnt i

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:

Wait I was right the first time. Do the stuff here:

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
-business/2019-July/041077.html

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

Scratch that I'm so confused. Actually you only need to resolve the first

one, with my spaceship going to 19 energy + 10 armour, and your
spaceship
going to 20 energy + 9 armour, and me winning.

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 10:01 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

The message with second resolution/initiation wasn't to the public

forum, so we're still in the first space battle.

Also, if we go to -12, we can't win, only with Fame exactly 10 or -10
can someone win.

I'm not sure that the first resolution worked, since you mis-stated my
armour, and since both spaceships were destroyed, I think nobody can
win it.


So I think this is the state:

Both of our Fames are still 0.

One ongoing Space Battle, with both spaceships destroyed. Resolution:
no
change in energy/armour, no winner.

One ongoing Space Battle, with two existing spaceships, with no energy
spent from either party yet.


In the second such space battle (the one with two existing spaceships),
I will spend 1 energy.


You need to:

- resolve the first one (the one with both spaceships destroyed) with
no
changes and no winner

- declare that you will spend 0 energy in the second (only at this
point) space battle

- resolve the (only) space battle, with my spaceship going to 19 energy
+ 10 armour, and your spaceship going to 20 energy + 9 armour, and me
winning.


Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 9:49 PM, Rebecca wrote:

So yeah just submit 1 for the next one

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca  wrote:

   From now on i will publicly state 0 energy. I think youre at -2 but
we


can
maybe go to -12 each to make us cfj proof

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca 
wrote:

Its fine, i privately communicated to myself acting on behalf of
halian


that i spent 0 energy

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb 
wrote:

NttPF.


Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 9:42 PM, Rebecca wrote:

On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20
energy


and 9
armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 10 armour. Jason wins and goes to
-2
fame

On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I
destroy
my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle.
The
resolvor is the astronomor halian


On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb 
wrote:

My (destroyed) ship had 10 armour, not 20 armour.

I will spend 1 energy in this space battle.

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 9:36 PM, Rebecca wrote:

Ttttpf

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca 

wrote:

On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20
energy
and 9

armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 20 armour. Jason wins and goes


to -1
fame.

On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new
one.
I
destroy
my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space
battle.
The
resolvor is the astronomor halian

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb 
On 7/24/19 8:27 PM, Rebecca wrote:

Actually that battle  doesnt work because my current ship is
in
a
battle

with CB


so I destroy it, create a new one, and challenge Jason Cobb
to
a
space
battle. The resolvor is Halian the astronomor, I spend 0
energy.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

Ill do this but i have to see my psychologist and go home first lol, i am
sorry!

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:

> Okay, let's recreate this:
>
>
> Beginning:
>
> - No Space Battle btw. you and me. Fames are 0
>
>
> After https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
> -business/2019-July/041060.html :
>
> - 0 space battles, because that didn't work
>
> - 2 spaceships
>
>
> After https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
> -business/2019-July/041062.html :
>
> - 1 Space Battle (#0).
>
> - You spent 0 energy
>
> - 2 spaceships, both in battle
>
>
> After https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
> -business/2019-July/041067.html :
>
> - 1 Space Battle
>
> - I spent 1 energy
>
>
> After https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
> -business/2019-July/041071.html :
>
> - INEFFECTIVE resolution
>
> - Space Battle #0: no spaceships. I spent 1, you spent 0, but neither
> works.
>
> - Space Battle #1: two spaceships, no spending
>
>
> After https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
> -business/2019-July/041072.html :
>
> - Space Battle #0: no spaceships. I spent 1, you spent 0, but neither
> works.
>
> - Space Battle #1: two spaceships, I spent 1, you did not publicly state
> amount spent.
>
>
> So, conclusively (I think):
>
> - Resolve Space Battle #0 (the one with no spaceships): No energy/armour
> changes, no fame changes (I'm at 0), no winner.
>
> - Publicly state that you spend 1 energy on Space Battle #1.
>
> - Resolve space battle #1 normally.
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/24/19 10:08 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>
>> I pfed the second resolution though didnt i
>>
>> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>>
>> Wait I was right the first time. Do the stuff here:
>>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
>>> -business/2019-July/041077.html
>>>
>>> Jason Cobb
>>>
>>> On 7/24/19 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>>>
>>> Scratch that I'm so confused. Actually you only need to resolve the first
 one, with my spaceship going to 19 energy + 10 armour, and your
 spaceship
 going to 20 energy + 9 armour, and me winning.

 Jason Cobb

 On 7/24/19 10:01 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

 The message with second resolution/initiation wasn't to the public
> forum, so we're still in the first space battle.
>
> Also, if we go to -12, we can't win, only with Fame exactly 10 or -10
> can someone win.
>
> I'm not sure that the first resolution worked, since you mis-stated my
> armour, and since both spaceships were destroyed, I think nobody can
> win it.
>
>
> So I think this is the state:
>
> Both of our Fames are still 0.
>
> One ongoing Space Battle, with both spaceships destroyed. Resolution:
> no
> change in energy/armour, no winner.
>
> One ongoing Space Battle, with two existing spaceships, with no energy
> spent from either party yet.
>
>
> In the second such space battle (the one with two existing spaceships),
> I will spend 1 energy.
>
>
> You need to:
>
> - resolve the first one (the one with both spaceships destroyed) with
> no
> changes and no winner
>
> - declare that you will spend 0 energy in the second (only at this
> point) space battle
>
> - resolve the (only) space battle, with my spaceship going to 19 energy
> + 10 armour, and your spaceship going to 20 energy + 9 armour, and me
> winning.
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/24/19 9:49 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>
> So yeah just submit 1 for the next one
>>
>> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca  wrote:
>>
>>   From now on i will publicly state 0 energy. I think youre at -2 but
>> we
>>
>>> can
>>> maybe go to -12 each to make us cfj proof
>>>
>>> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Its fine, i privately communicated to myself acting on behalf of
>>> halian
>>>
 that i spent 0 energy

 On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb 
 wrote:

 NttPF.

> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/24/19 9:42 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>
> On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20
> energy
>
>> and 9
>> armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 10 armour. Jason wins and goes to
>> -2
>> fame
>>
>> On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I
>> destroy
>> my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle.
>> The
>> resolvor is the astronomor halian
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb 
>> wrote:
>>
>> My (destroyed) ship had 10 armour, not 20 armour.
>>
>> I will spend 1 energy in this space battle.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

Okay, let's recreate this:

Beginning:

- No Space Battle btw. you and me. Fames are 0

After
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-July/041060.html
:

- 0 space battles, because that didn't work

- 2 spaceships

After
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-July/041062.html
:

- 1 Space Battle (#0).

- You spent 0 energy

- 2 spaceships, both in battle

After
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-July/041067.html
:

- 1 Space Battle

- I spent 1 energy

After
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-July/041071.html
:

- INEFFECTIVE resolution

- Space Battle #0: no spaceships. I spent 1, you spent 0, but neither works.

- Space Battle #1: two spaceships, no spending

After
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-July/041072.html
:

- Space Battle #0: no spaceships. I spent 1, you spent 0, but neither works.

- Space Battle #1: two spaceships, I spent 1, you did not publicly state
amount spent.

So, conclusively (I think):

- Resolve Space Battle #0 (the one with no spaceships): No energy/armour
changes, no fame changes (I'm at 0), no winner.

- Publicly state that you spend 1 energy on Space Battle #1.

- Resolve space battle #1 normally.

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 10:08 PM, Rebecca wrote:

I pfed the second resolution though didnt i

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:

Wait I was right the first time. Do the stuff here:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
-business/2019-July/041077.html

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

Scratch that I'm so confused. Actually you only need to resolve the first
one, with my spaceship going to 19 energy + 10 armour, and your spaceship
going to 20 energy + 9 armour, and me winning.

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 10:01 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

The message with second resolution/initiation wasn't to the public
forum, so we're still in the first space battle.

Also, if we go to -12, we can't win, only with Fame exactly 10 or -10
can someone win.

I'm not sure that the first resolution worked, since you mis-stated my
armour, and since both spaceships were destroyed, I think nobody can win it.

So I think this is the state:

Both of our Fames are still 0.

One ongoing Space Battle, with both spaceships destroyed. Resolution: no
change in energy/armour, no winner.

One ongoing Space Battle, with two existing spaceships, with no energy
spent from either party yet.

In the second such space battle (the one with two existing spaceships),
I will spend 1 energy.

You need to:

- resolve the first one (the one with both spaceships destroyed) with no
changes and no winner

- declare that you will spend 0 energy in the second (only at this
point) space battle

- resolve the (only) space battle, with my spaceship going to 19 energy
+ 10 armour, and your spaceship going to 20 energy + 9 armour, and me
winning.

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 9:49 PM, Rebecca wrote:

So yeah just submit 1 for the next one

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca wrote:

From now on i will publicly state 0 energy. I think youre at -2 but we

can
maybe go to -12 each to make us cfj proof

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca wrote:

Its fine, i privately communicated to myself acting on behalf of halian

that i spent 0 energy

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb
wrote:

NttPF.

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 9:42 PM, Rebecca wrote:

On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy

and 9
armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 10 armour. Jason wins and goes to
-2
fame

On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I
destroy
my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle.
The
resolvor is the astronomor halian

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb
wrote:

My (destroyed) ship had 10 armour, not 20 armour.

I will spend 1 energy in this space battle.

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 9:36 PM, Rebecca wrote:

Ttttpf

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca
wrote:

On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20
energy
and 9

armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 20 armour. Jason wins and goes

to -1
fame.

On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one.
I
destroy
my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space
battle.
The
resolvor is the astronomor halian

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb
wrote:

I will spend 1 energy in this Space Battle.

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 8:27 PM, Rebecca wrote:

Actually that battle doesnt work because my current ship is in
a
battle

with CB

so I destroy it, create a new one, and challenge Jason Cobb to
a
space
battle. The resolvor is Halian the astronomor, I spend 0
energy.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:23 AM Rebecca <
edwardostra...@gmail.com
wrote:

I spend 0 energy on that battle.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:22 AM Rebecca <
edwardostra...@gmail.com

wro

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

I pfed the second resolution though didnt i

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:

> Wait I was right the first time. Do the stuff here:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora
> -business/2019-July/041077.html
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/24/19 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
>> Scratch that I'm so confused. Actually you only need to resolve the first
>> one, with my spaceship going to 19 energy + 10 armour, and your spaceship
>> going to 20 energy + 9 armour, and me winning.
>>
>> Jason Cobb
>>
>> On 7/24/19 10:01 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>>
>>> The message with second resolution/initiation wasn't to the public
>>> forum, so we're still in the first space battle.
>>>
>>> Also, if we go to -12, we can't win, only with Fame exactly 10 or -10
>>> can someone win.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that the first resolution worked, since you mis-stated my
>>> armour, and since both spaceships were destroyed, I think nobody can win it.
>>>
>>>
>>> So I think this is the state:
>>>
>>> Both of our Fames are still 0.
>>>
>>> One ongoing Space Battle, with both spaceships destroyed. Resolution: no
>>> change in energy/armour, no winner.
>>>
>>> One ongoing Space Battle, with two existing spaceships, with no energy
>>> spent from either party yet.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the second such space battle (the one with two existing spaceships),
>>> I will spend 1 energy.
>>>
>>>
>>> You need to:
>>>
>>> - resolve the first one (the one with both spaceships destroyed) with no
>>> changes and no winner
>>>
>>> - declare that you will spend 0 energy in the second (only at this
>>> point) space battle
>>>
>>> - resolve the (only) space battle, with my spaceship going to 19 energy
>>> + 10 armour, and your spaceship going to 20 energy + 9 armour, and me
>>> winning.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jason Cobb
>>>
>>> On 7/24/19 9:49 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>>>
 So yeah just submit 1 for the next one

 On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca  wrote:

  From now on i will publicly state 0 energy. I think youre at -2 but we
> can
> maybe go to -12 each to make us cfj proof
>
> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca  wrote:
>
> Its fine, i privately communicated to myself acting on behalf of halian
>> that i spent 0 energy
>>
>> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb 
>> wrote:
>>
>> NttPF.
>>>
>>> Jason Cobb
>>>
>>> On 7/24/19 9:42 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>>>
>>> On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy
 and 9
 armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 10 armour. Jason wins and goes to
 -2
 fame

 On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I
 destroy
 my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle.
 The
 resolvor is the astronomor halian


 On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb 
 wrote:

 My (destroyed) ship had 10 armour, not 20 armour.

> I will spend 1 energy in this space battle.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/24/19 9:36 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>
> Ttttpf
>
>> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca 
>> wrote:
>>
>> On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20
>> energy
>> and 9
>>
>> armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 20 armour. Jason wins and goes
>>> to -1
>>> fame.
>>>
>>> On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one.
>>> I
>>> destroy
>>> my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space
>>> battle.
>>> The
>>> resolvor is the astronomor halian
>>>
>>> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I will spend 1 energy in this Space Battle.
>>>
>>> Jason Cobb

 On 7/24/19 8:27 PM, Rebecca wrote:

 Actually that battle  doesnt work because my current ship is in
 a
 battle

 with CB
>
> so I destroy it, create a new one, and challenge Jason Cobb to
> a
> space
> battle. The resolvor is Halian the astronomor, I spend 0
> energy.
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:23 AM Rebecca <
> edwardostra...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> I spend 0 energy on that battle.
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:22 AM Rebecca <
> edwardostra...@gmail.com
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I act on Jason Cobb's behalf to have em create a spaceship. I
>> challenge
>> em
>>
>> to a space battle. The resolvor is the astronomor, Halian.
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

So yeah just submit 1 for the next one

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca  wrote:

> From now on i will publicly state 0 energy. I think youre at -2 but we can
> maybe go to -12 each to make us cfj proof
>
> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca  wrote:
>
>> Its fine, i privately communicated to myself acting on behalf of halian
>> that i spent 0 energy
>>
>> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>>
>>> NttPF.
>>>
>>> Jason Cobb
>>>
>>> On 7/24/19 9:42 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>>>
 On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy
 and 9
 armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 10 armour. Jason wins and goes to -2
 fame

 On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I
 destroy
 my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle. The
 resolvor is the astronomor halian


 On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:

 My (destroyed) ship had 10 armour, not 20 armour.
>
> I will spend 1 energy in this space battle.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/24/19 9:36 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>
> Ttttpf
>>
>> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca  wrote:
>>
>> On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy
>> and 9
>>
>>> armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 20 armour. Jason wins and goes to -1
>>> fame.
>>>
>>> On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I
>>> destroy
>>> my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle.
>>> The
>>> resolvor is the astronomor halian
>>>
>>> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I will spend 1 energy in this Space Battle.
>>>
 Jason Cobb

 On 7/24/19 8:27 PM, Rebecca wrote:

 Actually that battle  doesnt work because my current ship is in a
 battle

> with CB
>
> so I destroy it, create a new one, and challenge Jason Cobb to a
> space
> battle. The resolvor is Halian the astronomor, I spend 0 energy.
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:23 AM Rebecca  >
> wrote:
>
> I spend 0 energy on that battle.
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:22 AM Rebecca > >
>> wrote:
>>
>> I act on Jason Cobb's behalf to have em create a spaceship. I
>> challenge
>> em
>>
>> to a space battle. The resolvor is the astronomor, Halian.
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:21 AM Rebecca <
>>> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>> Jason Cobb and I consented to the below contract
>>
>>> 0. The name of this contract is "Space Shenanigans".

 1. Only R. Lee and Jason Cobb CAN be parties to this contract.
 If
 any
 other person becomes a party to this contract, e immediately
 ceases

 to
>>>
>> be a

> party and, the rest of this contract not withstanding, CANNOT
>>> perform
>>> any
>>> actions authorized by this contract.
>>>
>>> 2. A party to this contract CAN cease being a party by
 announcement.

 3. A party to this contract CAN act on behalf of another party
 to

 this
>>>
>> contract to perform the following actions:

>   - Create a spaceship
   - Destroy a spaceship

 4. One party to this contract is the "Attacker". The other
 party to
 this
 contract is the "Defender".

 5. At the initiation of this contract, Jason Cobb is the
 Attacker,

 and
>>>
>> R.

> Lee is the Defender.
>>>
>>> 6. In any Space Battle between parties to this contract, the
 Attacker
 SHALL expend more than 0 energy, and the Defender SHALL expend 0
 energy.

 7. If either party to this contract has Fame of either 10 or
 -10,
 any
 party to this contract CAN, by announcement, cause the
 occupants of

 the
>>>
>> roles Attacker and Defender to switch places.

>

 --
From R. Lee


 --

>>>From R. Lee
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>From R. Lee
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>   From R. Lee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> From R. Lee
>>
>>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>
>

-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

>From now on i will publicly state 0 energy. I think youre at -2 but we can
maybe go to -12 each to make us cfj proof

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca  wrote:

> Its fine, i privately communicated to myself acting on behalf of halian
> that i spent 0 energy
>
> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
>> NttPF.
>>
>> Jason Cobb
>>
>> On 7/24/19 9:42 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>>
>>> On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy and
>>> 9
>>> armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 10 armour. Jason wins and goes to -2
>>> fame
>>>
>>> On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I
>>> destroy
>>> my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle. The
>>> resolvor is the astronomor halian
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>>>
>>> My (destroyed) ship had 10 armour, not 20 armour.

 I will spend 1 energy in this space battle.

 Jason Cobb

 On 7/24/19 9:36 PM, Rebecca wrote:

 Ttttpf
>
> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca  wrote:
>
> On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy
> and 9
>
>> armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 20 armour. Jason wins and goes to -1
>> fame.
>>
>> On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I
>> destroy
>> my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle. The
>> resolvor is the astronomor halian
>>
>> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I will spend 1 energy in this Space Battle.
>>
>>> Jason Cobb
>>>
>>> On 7/24/19 8:27 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually that battle  doesnt work because my current ship is in a
>>> battle
>>>
 with CB

 so I destroy it, create a new one, and challenge Jason Cobb to a
 space
 battle. The resolvor is Halian the astronomor, I spend 0 energy.

 On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:23 AM Rebecca 
 wrote:

 I spend 0 energy on that battle.

 On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:22 AM Rebecca 
> wrote:
>
> I act on Jason Cobb's behalf to have em create a spaceship. I
> challenge
> em
>
> to a space battle. The resolvor is the astronomor, Halian.
>
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:21 AM Rebecca <
>> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
> Jason Cobb and I consented to the below contract
>
>> 0. The name of this contract is "Space Shenanigans".
>>>
>>> 1. Only R. Lee and Jason Cobb CAN be parties to this contract. If
>>> any
>>> other person becomes a party to this contract, e immediately
>>> ceases
>>>
>>> to
>>
> be a
>>>
 party and, the rest of this contract not withstanding, CANNOT
>> perform
>> any
>> actions authorized by this contract.
>>
>> 2. A party to this contract CAN cease being a party by
>>> announcement.
>>>
>>> 3. A party to this contract CAN act on behalf of another party to
>>>
>>> this
>>
> contract to perform the following actions:
>>>
   - Create a spaceship
>>>   - Destroy a spaceship
>>>
>>> 4. One party to this contract is the "Attacker". The other party
>>> to
>>> this
>>> contract is the "Defender".
>>>
>>> 5. At the initiation of this contract, Jason Cobb is the
>>> Attacker,
>>>
>>> and
>>
> R.
>>>
 Lee is the Defender.
>>
>> 6. In any Space Battle between parties to this contract, the
>>> Attacker
>>> SHALL expend more than 0 energy, and the Defender SHALL expend 0
>>> energy.
>>>
>>> 7. If either party to this contract has Fame of either 10 or -10,
>>> any
>>> party to this contract CAN, by announcement, cause the occupants
>>> of
>>>
>>> the
>>
> roles Attacker and Defender to switch places.
>>>

>>>
>>> --
>>>From R. Lee
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>From R. Lee
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>From R. Lee
>
>
> --
>
   From R. Lee
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>
>

-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: no zombie deputies


Should this apply to all acting-on-behalf, rather than just zombies?

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 9:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


I submit the following proposal, "Active Officers", AI=3:


Amend Rule 2160 (Deputisation) by replacing:
  A player (the deputy)
with:
  An active player (the deputy)


Amend Rule 2472/2 (Office Incompatibilities) by inserting this
paragraph:
  A zombie who holds one or more offices is Overpowered.
after the paragraph beginning:
  A player is Overpowered if e holds two offices which are
  incompatible with each other.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff


Alright, sure.

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 9:47 PM, Rebecca wrote:

Its fine, i privately communicated to myself acting on behalf of halian
that i spent 0 energy

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:


NttPF.

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 9:42 PM, Rebecca wrote:


On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy and 9
armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 10 armour. Jason wins and goes to -2 fame

On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I destroy
my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle. The
resolvor is the astronomor halian


On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:

My (destroyed) ship had 10 armour, not 20 armour.

I will spend 1 energy in this space battle.

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 9:36 PM, Rebecca wrote:

Ttttpf

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca  wrote:

On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy
and 9


armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 20 armour. Jason wins and goes to -1
fame.

On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I
destroy
my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle. The
resolvor is the astronomor halian

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:

I will spend 1 energy in this Space Battle.


Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 8:27 PM, Rebecca wrote:

Actually that battle  doesnt work because my current ship is in a
battle


with CB

so I destroy it, create a new one, and challenge Jason Cobb to a
space
battle. The resolvor is Halian the astronomor, I spend 0 energy.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:23 AM Rebecca 
wrote:

I spend 0 energy on that battle.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:22 AM Rebecca 

wrote:

I act on Jason Cobb's behalf to have em create a spaceship. I
challenge
em

to a space battle. The resolvor is the astronomor, Halian.


On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:21 AM Rebecca 
Jason Cobb and I consented to the below contract


0. The name of this contract is "Space Shenanigans".

1. Only R. Lee and Jason Cobb CAN be parties to this contract. If
any
other person becomes a party to this contract, e immediately
ceases

to

be a

party and, the rest of this contract not withstanding, CANNOT perform

any
actions authorized by this contract.

2. A party to this contract CAN cease being a party by

announcement.

3. A party to this contract CAN act on behalf of another party to

this

contract to perform the following actions:

   - Create a spaceship

   - Destroy a spaceship

4. One party to this contract is the "Attacker". The other party
to
this
contract is the "Defender".

5. At the initiation of this contract, Jason Cobb is the Attacker,

and

R.

Lee is the Defender.

6. In any Space Battle between parties to this contract, the

Attacker
SHALL expend more than 0 energy, and the Defender SHALL expend 0
energy.

7. If either party to this contract has Fame of either 10 or -10,
any
party to this contract CAN, by announcement, cause the occupants
of

the

roles Attacker and Defender to switch places.

--
From R. Lee


--


From R. Lee


--


From R. Lee


--


   From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

Its fine, i privately communicated to myself acting on behalf of halian
that i spent 0 energy

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:

> NttPF.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/24/19 9:42 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>
>> On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy and 9
>> armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 10 armour. Jason wins and goes to -2 fame
>>
>> On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I destroy
>> my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle. The
>> resolvor is the astronomor halian
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>>
>> My (destroyed) ship had 10 armour, not 20 armour.
>>>
>>> I will spend 1 energy in this space battle.
>>>
>>> Jason Cobb
>>>
>>> On 7/24/19 9:36 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>>>
>>> Ttttpf

 On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca  wrote:

 On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy
 and 9

> armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 20 armour. Jason wins and goes to -1
> fame.
>
> On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I
> destroy
> my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle. The
> resolvor is the astronomor halian
>
> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> I will spend 1 energy in this Space Battle.
>
>> Jason Cobb
>>
>> On 7/24/19 8:27 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>>
>> Actually that battle  doesnt work because my current ship is in a
>> battle
>>
>>> with CB
>>>
>>> so I destroy it, create a new one, and challenge Jason Cobb to a
>>> space
>>> battle. The resolvor is Halian the astronomor, I spend 0 energy.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:23 AM Rebecca 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I spend 0 energy on that battle.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:22 AM Rebecca 
 wrote:

 I act on Jason Cobb's behalf to have em create a spaceship. I
 challenge
 em

 to a space battle. The resolvor is the astronomor, Halian.

> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:21 AM Rebecca  >
>
> wrote:
>
 Jason Cobb and I consented to the below contract

> 0. The name of this contract is "Space Shenanigans".
>>
>> 1. Only R. Lee and Jason Cobb CAN be parties to this contract. If
>> any
>> other person becomes a party to this contract, e immediately
>> ceases
>>
>> to
>
 be a
>>
>>> party and, the rest of this contract not withstanding, CANNOT perform
> any
> actions authorized by this contract.
>
> 2. A party to this contract CAN cease being a party by
>> announcement.
>>
>> 3. A party to this contract CAN act on behalf of another party to
>>
>> this
>
 contract to perform the following actions:
>>
>>>   - Create a spaceship
>>   - Destroy a spaceship
>>
>> 4. One party to this contract is the "Attacker". The other party
>> to
>> this
>> contract is the "Defender".
>>
>> 5. At the initiation of this contract, Jason Cobb is the Attacker,
>>
>> and
>
 R.
>>
>>> Lee is the Defender.
>
> 6. In any Space Battle between parties to this contract, the
>> Attacker
>> SHALL expend more than 0 energy, and the Defender SHALL expend 0
>> energy.
>>
>> 7. If either party to this contract has Fame of either 10 or -10,
>> any
>> party to this contract CAN, by announcement, cause the occupants
>> of
>>
>> the
>
 roles Attacker and Defender to switch places.
>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>From R. Lee
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>From R. Lee
>
>
> --
>
From R. Lee


 --

>>>   From R. Lee
>
>
>

-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff


NttPF.

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 9:42 PM, Rebecca wrote:

On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy and 9
armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 10 armour. Jason wins and goes to -2 fame

On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I destroy
my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle. The
resolvor is the astronomor halian


On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:


My (destroyed) ship had 10 armour, not 20 armour.

I will spend 1 energy in this space battle.

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 9:36 PM, Rebecca wrote:


Ttttpf

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca  wrote:

On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy and 9

armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 20 armour. Jason wins and goes to -1
fame.

On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I
destroy
my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle. The
resolvor is the astronomor halian

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:

I will spend 1 energy in this Space Battle.

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 8:27 PM, Rebecca wrote:

Actually that battle  doesnt work because my current ship is in a battle

with CB

so I destroy it, create a new one, and challenge Jason Cobb to a space
battle. The resolvor is Halian the astronomor, I spend 0 energy.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:23 AM Rebecca 
wrote:

I spend 0 energy on that battle.


On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:22 AM Rebecca 
wrote:

I act on Jason Cobb's behalf to have em create a spaceship. I
challenge
em

to a space battle. The resolvor is the astronomor, Halian.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:21 AM Rebecca 

wrote:

Jason Cobb and I consented to the below contract

0. The name of this contract is "Space Shenanigans".

1. Only R. Lee and Jason Cobb CAN be parties to this contract. If
any
other person becomes a party to this contract, e immediately ceases


to

be a

party and, the rest of this contract not withstanding, CANNOT perform
any
actions authorized by this contract.


2. A party to this contract CAN cease being a party by announcement.

3. A party to this contract CAN act on behalf of another party to


this

contract to perform the following actions:

  - Create a spaceship
  - Destroy a spaceship

4. One party to this contract is the "Attacker". The other party to
this
contract is the "Defender".

5. At the initiation of this contract, Jason Cobb is the Attacker,


and

R.

Lee is the Defender.


6. In any Space Battle between parties to this contract, the
Attacker
SHALL expend more than 0 energy, and the Defender SHALL expend 0
energy.

7. If either party to this contract has Fame of either 10 or -10,
any
party to this contract CAN, by announcement, cause the occupants of


the

roles Attacker and Defender to switch places.



--
   From R. Lee


--

   From R. Lee


--

   From R. Lee


--

  From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy and 9
armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 10 armour. Jason wins and goes to -2 fame

On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I destroy
my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle. The
resolvor is the astronomor halian


On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:

> My (destroyed) ship had 10 armour, not 20 armour.
>
> I will spend 1 energy in this space battle.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/24/19 9:36 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>
>> Ttttpf
>>
>> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca  wrote:
>>
>> On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy and 9
>>> armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 20 armour. Jason wins and goes to -1
>>> fame.
>>>
>>> On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I
>>> destroy
>>> my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle. The
>>> resolvor is the astronomor halian
>>>
>>> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>>>
>>> I will spend 1 energy in this Space Battle.

 Jason Cobb

 On 7/24/19 8:27 PM, Rebecca wrote:

 Actually that battle  doesnt work because my current ship is in a battle
> with CB
>
> so I destroy it, create a new one, and challenge Jason Cobb to a space
> battle. The resolvor is Halian the astronomor, I spend 0 energy.
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:23 AM Rebecca 
> wrote:
>
> I spend 0 energy on that battle.
>
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:22 AM Rebecca 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I act on Jason Cobb's behalf to have em create a spaceship. I
>> challenge
>> em
>>
>> to a space battle. The resolvor is the astronomor, Halian.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:21 AM Rebecca 
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>
>> Jason Cobb and I consented to the below contract
>>>
 0. The name of this contract is "Space Shenanigans".

 1. Only R. Lee and Jason Cobb CAN be parties to this contract. If
 any
 other person becomes a party to this contract, e immediately ceases

>>> to
>>>
 be a
>>> party and, the rest of this contract not withstanding, CANNOT perform
>>> any
>>> actions authorized by this contract.
>>>
 2. A party to this contract CAN cease being a party by announcement.

 3. A party to this contract CAN act on behalf of another party to

>>> this
>>>
 contract to perform the following actions:

  - Create a spaceship
  - Destroy a spaceship

 4. One party to this contract is the "Attacker". The other party to
 this
 contract is the "Defender".

 5. At the initiation of this contract, Jason Cobb is the Attacker,

>>> and
>>>
 R.
>>> Lee is the Defender.
>>>
 6. In any Space Battle between parties to this contract, the
 Attacker
 SHALL expend more than 0 energy, and the Defender SHALL expend 0
 energy.

 7. If either party to this contract has Fame of either 10 or -10,
 any
 party to this contract CAN, by announcement, cause the occupants of

>>> the
>>>
 roles Attacker and Defender to switch places.



 --
   From R. Lee


 --
>>>   From R. Lee
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>   From R. Lee
>>
>>
>> --
>>>  From R. Lee
>>>
>>>
>>

-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

Ttttpf

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Rebecca  wrote:

> On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy and 9
> armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 20 armour. Jason wins and goes to -1 fame.
>
> On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I destroy
> my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle. The
> resolvor is the astronomor halian
>
> On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> > I will spend 1 energy in this Space Battle.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 7/24/19 8:27 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> >
> >> Actually that battle  doesnt work because my current ship is in a battle
> >> with CB
> >>
> >> so I destroy it, create a new one, and challenge Jason Cobb to a space
> >> battle. The resolvor is Halian the astronomor, I spend 0 energy.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:23 AM Rebecca 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I spend 0 energy on that battle.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:22 AM Rebecca 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I act on Jason Cobb's behalf to have em create a spaceship. I challenge
> 
> >>> em
> >>>
>  to a space battle. The resolvor is the astronomor, Halian.
> 
>  On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:21 AM Rebecca 
> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Jason Cobb and I consented to the below contract
> >
> > 0. The name of this contract is "Space Shenanigans".
> >
> > 1. Only R. Lee and Jason Cobb CAN be parties to this contract. If any
> > other person becomes a party to this contract, e immediately ceases
> to
> >
>  be a
> >>>
>  party and, the rest of this contract not withstanding, CANNOT perform
> >
>  any
> >>>
>  actions authorized by this contract.
> >
> > 2. A party to this contract CAN cease being a party by announcement.
> >
> > 3. A party to this contract CAN act on behalf of another party to
> this
> > contract to perform the following actions:
> >
> > - Create a spaceship
> > - Destroy a spaceship
> >
> > 4. One party to this contract is the "Attacker". The other party to
> > this
> > contract is the "Defender".
> >
> > 5. At the initiation of this contract, Jason Cobb is the Attacker,
> and
> >
>  R.
> >>>
>  Lee is the Defender.
> >
> > 6. In any Space Battle between parties to this contract, the Attacker
> > SHALL expend more than 0 energy, and the Defender SHALL expend 0
> > energy.
> >
> > 7. If either party to this contract has Fame of either 10 or -10, any
> > party to this contract CAN, by announcement, cause the occupants of
> the
> > roles Attacker and Defender to switch places.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >  From R. Lee
> >
> >
>  --
>   From R. Lee
> 
> 
> >>> --
> >>>  From R. Lee
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Space stuff

On behalf of halian i resolve this battle. R lees ship has 20 energy and 9
armour. Jasons has 19 energy and 20 armour. Jason wins and goes to -1 fame.

On behalf of jason i destroy eir spaceship and create a new one. I destroy
my ship and create a new one. I challenge jason to a space battle. The
resolvor is the astronomor halian

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:

> I will spend 1 energy in this Space Battle.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/24/19 8:27 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>
>> Actually that battle  doesnt work because my current ship is in a battle
>> with CB
>>
>> so I destroy it, create a new one, and challenge Jason Cobb to a space
>> battle. The resolvor is Halian the astronomor, I spend 0 energy.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:23 AM Rebecca 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I spend 0 energy on that battle.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:22 AM Rebecca 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I act on Jason Cobb's behalf to have em create a spaceship. I challenge

>>> em
>>>
 to a space battle. The resolvor is the astronomor, Halian.

 On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:21 AM Rebecca 

>>> wrote:
>>>
 Jason Cobb and I consented to the below contract
>
> 0. The name of this contract is "Space Shenanigans".
>
> 1. Only R. Lee and Jason Cobb CAN be parties to this contract. If any
> other person becomes a party to this contract, e immediately ceases to
>
 be a
>>>
 party and, the rest of this contract not withstanding, CANNOT perform
>
 any
>>>
 actions authorized by this contract.
>
> 2. A party to this contract CAN cease being a party by announcement.
>
> 3. A party to this contract CAN act on behalf of another party to this
> contract to perform the following actions:
>
> - Create a spaceship
> - Destroy a spaceship
>
> 4. One party to this contract is the "Attacker". The other party to
> this
> contract is the "Defender".
>
> 5. At the initiation of this contract, Jason Cobb is the Attacker, and
>
 R.
>>>
 Lee is the Defender.
>
> 6. In any Space Battle between parties to this contract, the Attacker
> SHALL expend more than 0 energy, and the Defender SHALL expend 0
> energy.
>
> 7. If either party to this contract has Fame of either 10 or -10, any
> party to this contract CAN, by announcement, cause the occupants of the
> roles Attacker and Defender to switch places.
>
>
>
> --
>  From R. Lee
>
>
 --
  From R. Lee


>>> --
>>>  From R. Lee
>>>
>>>
>>

-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: Space Rebel Uprising




On 7/24/2019 6:25 PM, nch wrote:
I deregister. I register. 


Um, how are you getting around this CANNOT in R869:
   A player, acting as
  emself, CAN deregister (cease being a player) by announcement. If
  e does so, e CANNOT register or be registered for 30 days.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Space Rebel Uprising

2019-07-24 Thread nch




On 7/24/19 8:28 PM, James Cook wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 01:25, nch  wrote:

I deregister. I register.

Sorry, you can't be registered for 30 days after deregistering
yourself by announcement. R869


Oops, oh well. Guess I'm sitting out for a month.

DIS: Re: BUS: Space Rebel Uprising

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 01:25, nch  wrote:
> I deregister. I register.

Sorry, you can't be registered for 30 days after deregistering
yourself by announcement. R869

-- 
- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: space

2019-07-24 Thread nch




On 7/24/19 7:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On 7/24/2019 5:22 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
To decide if we want to turn spaceships into a set of player switches 
again, we have to decide if we want modules and if we care about 
elegance if and when they are implemented.


But we need to focus on fixing what we already have first.


I mean the real issue here was that once a spaceship was disabled, you
were out of the game permanently, but nch's proposal adding the 
ability to

just destroy and recreate spaceships pretty much threw playability out
the window.  If it was phrased as the ability to flip switches it would
still be the same thing.

-G.


The minimum necessary changes, I think, are:

-Make ships indestructible assets

-Cancel the CAN create clause

-Create ships in the possession of everyone who does not currently have one

-Destroy ships when the owner deregisters

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: space




On 7/24/2019 5:22 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
To decide if we want to turn spaceships into a set of player switches again, 
we have to decide if we want modules and if we care about elegance if and 
when they are implemented.


But we need to focus on fixing what we already have first.


I mean the real issue here was that once a spaceship was disabled, you
were out of the game permanently, but nch's proposal adding the ability to
just destroy and recreate spaceships pretty much threw playability out
the window.  If it was phrased as the ability to flip switches it would
still be the same thing.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: space

2019-07-24 Thread Reuben Staley


The history of spaceship switches:

ATMunn's original proto had spaceships as fixed assets. Several players 
suggested replacing them with player switches because it would be easier 
that way. Later versions had spaceship switches as player switches. This 
was the system we'd decided on until twg suggested switching them back 
for extensibility. Some of us had proposal outlines to make spaceships 
modular and it was just more logical to have spaceships be their own 
assets that could own modules rather than anything else.


When ATMunn stopped caring, twg took over writing the spaaace proposals 
and turned spaceships into assets again. No one commented on it afterward.


Obviously those extensions never happened. Now that we are starting to 
realize how broken spaaace is again, the same disagreements are popping up.


To decide if we want to turn spaceships into a set of player switches 
again, we have to decide if we want modules and if we care about 
elegance if and when they are implemented.


But we need to focus on fixing what we already have first.

On 7/24/19 5:51 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

I propose we make it better by repealing it. (Half joke.)

Okay, seriously though, spaceships are a bad idea. It doesn't make any
sense at all for them to be assets. Just make their switches player
switches and have done with it.

-Aris

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 9:45 PM Rebecca  wrote:


that's why im doing the 1000 IQ strat of only challenging inactive players
so they wont respond and i win within 70 days
yea space is terrible lol please propose some ways to make it better

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 2:44 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:


Well, dang it; I didn't read the Rules carefully enough. Although it
does seem like a bug that I'm basically permanently out of a spaceship

now.


Jason Cobb

On 7/23/19 12:40 AM, Rebecca wrote:

u can only do that  for a pilotable spaceship lol

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 2:34 PM Jason Cobb 

wrote:



I spend 1 coin to repair my spaceship by 1 Armour.

Jason Cobb

On 7/23/19 12:32 AM, Rebecca wrote:

Alright. G. wins the below space battle. Jason Cobb's armour goes to

0

and

eir spaceship is now unpilotable. G's Armour is still at 10. G. now

has

10

energy. G. now has -1 fame.

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:57 PM Jason Cobb 

wrote:

I transfer to G. 15 coins.


I reveal that I have spent 0 energy in this space battle. Hashed
message: "I will spend 0 energy in this battle. SALT: SPACE CORE

LIVES

ON."


Jason Cobb

On 7/22/19 10:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On 7/22/2019 7:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

I challenge G. to a space battle. The resolver is R. Lee, the
Astronomor.


I pledge that I will transfer to G. 15 coins if e spends exactly

10

energy in this Space Battle. (The energy you have right now was

free,

and you gain two energy per day, so slightly below replacement

cost).


I pledge that I will spend less than 10 energy in this Space

Battle.

I don't really care about space but this intrigues me, I wish to

spend

10 energy in this battle.








--
 From R. Lee



--
Trigon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contracts

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:59 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On 7/24/2019 4:56 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > Although actually, I think the "put it back exactly the same" clause means
> > that even the momentary destruction of Agora wouldn't fall afoul of the
> > higher power rules
>
> I wholly disagree, and for historical reasons would vote against any
> discontinuities anyway (or risks thereof), even instantaneous ones. -G.

Hear, hear!

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contracts




On 7/24/2019 4:56 PM, Rebecca wrote:

Although actually, I think the "put it back exactly the same" clause means
that even the momentary destruction of Agora wouldn't fall afoul of the
higher power rules


I wholly disagree, and for historical reasons would vote against any
discontinuities anyway (or risks thereof), even instantaneous ones. -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contracts

Although actually, I think the "put it back exactly the same" clause means
that even the momentary destruction of Agora wouldn't fall afoul of the
higher power rules

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 9:55 AM Rebecca  wrote:

> I retract that proposal and substitute this one.
>
> Title: No secret contracts
> AI: 2.5
> Text: Destroy each contract the full text of which has not been posted in
> public. If this destroyed Agora, put it back again the same as it was.
> Nobody will be able to tell the difference.
> Amend the rule "Contracts" by changing "Such an agreement is known as a
> contract." to "When the full text of such an agreement is posted in public,
> it is known as a contract"
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 9:54 AM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Okay, you may be right, but it would be a lot safer to use "each", so
>> why don't you?
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:52 PM Rebecca  wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't think so because the full text of the Agoran ruleset has been
>> > posted in public, and it's the ruleset we all agree to.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 9:43 AM Aris Merchant <
>> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > This doesn't work. It possibly tries to destroy Agora, which is
>> > > impossible due to power constraints. Since you said "all contracts",
>> > > if you can't destroy one, you fail to destroy all of them. Try
>> > > "destroy each contract..."
>> > >
>> > > -Aris
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca 
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I create the following proposal yea boi
>> > > > Title: No secret contracts
>> > > > AI: 2.5
>> > > > Text: Destroy all contracts the full text of which has not been
>> posted in
>> > > > public. If this destroyed Agora, put it back again the same as it
>> was.
>> > > > Nobody will be able to tell the difference.
>> > > > Amend the rule "Contracts" by changing "Such an agreement is known
>> as a
>> > > > contract." to "When the full text of such an agreement is posted in
>> > > public,
>> > > > it is known as a contract"
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > From R. Lee
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From R. Lee
>>
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contracts




If there's a proposal resolved immediately before this one, with a rule
change in it, the full text will not have been published at that moment.

(it may be inferred from public info, but it won't have actually have
been published).

On 7/24/2019 4:52 PM, Rebecca wrote:

I don't think so because the full text of the Agoran ruleset has been
posted in public, and it's the ruleset we all agree to.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 9:43 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:


This doesn't work. It possibly tries to destroy Agora, which is
impossible due to power constraints. Since you said "all contracts",
if you can't destroy one, you fail to destroy all of them. Try
"destroy each contract..."

-Aris

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca  wrote:


I create the following proposal yea boi
Title: No secret contracts
AI: 2.5
Text: Destroy all contracts the full text of which has not been posted in
public. If this destroyed Agora, put it back again the same as it was.
Nobody will be able to tell the difference.
Amend the rule "Contracts" by changing "Such an agreement is known as a
contract." to "When the full text of such an agreement is posted in

public,

it is known as a contract"

--
 From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Astronomor] Sector Creation

Between the July 9 and July 15 reports, I deregistered Tarhalindur and nch
registered.

- Falsifian

On Wed., Jul. 24, 2019, 17:17 Rebecca,  wrote:

> The last registrar's report listed 25 but nch also registered.. Unless
> someone also derregistered?
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:30 AM James Cook  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 02:03, Rebecca  wrote:
> > > So we're lacking a registrar's report for quite a while but I think
> there
> > > are 26 players now and therefore 26 spaceships, so there needs to be 28
> > > sectors.
> > ...
> > > I create the following sectors
> > ...
> > > Sector 28: Thank God There's Only 28 Sectors Galaxy
> > > --
> > > From R. Lee
> >
> > Sorry, I think there are only 25 players, so you never created Sector 28.
> >
> > --
> > - Falsifian
> >
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contracts

Okay, you may be right, but it would be a lot safer to use "each", so
why don't you?

-Aris

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:52 PM Rebecca  wrote:
>
> I don't think so because the full text of the Agoran ruleset has been
> posted in public, and it's the ruleset we all agree to.
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 9:43 AM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This doesn't work. It possibly tries to destroy Agora, which is
> > impossible due to power constraints. Since you said "all contracts",
> > if you can't destroy one, you fail to destroy all of them. Try
> > "destroy each contract..."
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca  wrote:
> > >
> > > I create the following proposal yea boi
> > > Title: No secret contracts
> > > AI: 2.5
> > > Text: Destroy all contracts the full text of which has not been posted in
> > > public. If this destroyed Agora, put it back again the same as it was.
> > > Nobody will be able to tell the difference.
> > > Amend the rule "Contracts" by changing "Such an agreement is known as a
> > > contract." to "When the full text of such an agreement is posted in
> > public,
> > > it is known as a contract"
> > >
> > > --
> > > From R. Lee
> >
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contracts

I don't think so because the full text of the Agoran ruleset has been
posted in public, and it's the ruleset we all agree to.

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 9:43 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This doesn't work. It possibly tries to destroy Agora, which is
> impossible due to power constraints. Since you said "all contracts",
> if you can't destroy one, you fail to destroy all of them. Try
> "destroy each contract..."
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca  wrote:
> >
> > I create the following proposal yea boi
> > Title: No secret contracts
> > AI: 2.5
> > Text: Destroy all contracts the full text of which has not been posted in
> > public. If this destroyed Agora, put it back again the same as it was.
> > Nobody will be able to tell the difference.
> > Amend the rule "Contracts" by changing "Such an agreement is known as a
> > contract." to "When the full text of such an agreement is posted in
> public,
> > it is known as a contract"
> >
> > --
> > From R. Lee
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: space

I propose we make it better by repealing it. (Half joke.)

Okay, seriously though, spaceships are a bad idea. It doesn't make any
sense at all for them to be assets. Just make their switches player
switches and have done with it.

-Aris

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 9:45 PM Rebecca  wrote:

> that's why im doing the 1000 IQ strat of only challenging inactive players
> so they wont respond and i win within 70 days
> yea space is terrible lol please propose some ways to make it better
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 2:44 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> > Well, dang it; I didn't read the Rules carefully enough. Although it
> > does seem like a bug that I'm basically permanently out of a spaceship
> now.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 7/23/19 12:40 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> > > u can only do that  for a pilotable spaceship lol
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 2:34 PM Jason Cobb 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I spend 1 coin to repair my spaceship by 1 Armour.
> > >>
> > >> Jason Cobb
> > >>
> > >> On 7/23/19 12:32 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> > >>> Alright. G. wins the below space battle. Jason Cobb's armour goes to
> 0
> > >> and
> > >>> eir spaceship is now unpilotable. G's Armour is still at 10. G. now
> has
> > >> 10
> > >>> energy. G. now has -1 fame.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:57 PM Jason Cobb 
> > >> wrote:
> >  I transfer to G. 15 coins.
> > 
> > 
> >  I reveal that I have spent 0 energy in this space battle. Hashed
> >  message: "I will spend 0 energy in this battle. SALT: SPACE CORE
> LIVES
> > >> ON."
> > 
> >  Jason Cobb
> > 
> >  On 7/22/19 10:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > On 7/22/2019 7:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > >> I challenge G. to a space battle. The resolver is R. Lee, the
> > >> Astronomor.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I pledge that I will transfer to G. 15 coins if e spends exactly
> 10
> > >> energy in this Space Battle. (The energy you have right now was
> > free,
> > >> and you gain two energy per day, so slightly below replacement
> > cost).
> > >>
> > >> I pledge that I will spend less than 10 energy in this Space
> Battle.
> > > I don't really care about space but this intrigues me, I wish to
> > spend
> > > 10 energy in this battle.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: space

Could you maybe shorten that title? It's really, really long.

-The Office of the Promotor


On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 3:27 AM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 10:22 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 5:17 AM, Jason Cobb  
> > wrote:
> > > Actually, I withdraw this proposal. I destroy the spaceship in my
> > > possession. I create a spaceship in my possession.
> >
> > I act on behalf of Jacob Arduino to submit the following proposal:
> >
> > Title: Repairing Defeated Spaceships, For Realsies
> > AI: 1.0
> > Co-authors: twg, Jason Cobb
> >
> > {
> >
> > Amend Rule 2595 by replacing the text "Any player CAN, by
> > announcement, spend a coin to increase the Armour of a Pilotable
> > Spaceship e owns by 1." with the text "Any player CAN pay a fee of 1
> > coin increase the Armour of a Pilotable Spaceship in eir possession by
> > 1 or pay a fee of 3 coins to increase the Armour of a Defeated
> > Spaceship by 1."
> >
> > [Comment: Right now, Defeated Spaceships are effectively dead forever.
> > If a player goes all out and kills the other person's Spaceship, they
> > are effectively banished from the subgame forever. To solve this, a
> > slight penalty is added for repairing a Defeated spaceship. The number
> > of coins remains small because it is just a subgame.]
> >
> > Amend Rule 2591 by replacing the text "Spaceships are a class of fixed
> > asset" with "Spaceships are a class of fixed indestructible asset".
> >
> > }
> >
> > -twg
>
>
> I act on behalf of Jacob Arduino to retract the above proposal.
>
> I act on behalf of Jacob Arduino to submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Repairing Defeated Spaceships, For Realsies, Minus Typo
> AI: 1.0
> Co-authors: twg, Jason Cobb
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2595 by replacing the text "Any player CAN, by
> announcement, spend a coin to increase the Armour of a Pilotable
> Spaceship e owns by 1." with the text "Any player CAN pay a fee of 1
> coin to increase the Armour of a Pilotable Spaceship in eir possession
> by 1 or pay a fee of 3 coins to increase the Armour of a Defeated
> Spaceship by 1."
>
> [Comment: Right now, Defeated Spaceships are effectively dead forever.
> If a player goes all out and kills the other person's Spaceship, they
> are effectively banished from the subgame forever. To solve this, a
> slight penalty is added for repairing a Defeated spaceship. The number
> of coins remains small because it is just a subgame.]
>
> Amend Rule 2591 by replacing the text "Spaceships are a class of fixed
> asset" with "Spaceships are a class of fixed indestructible asset".
>
> [Change from the original: "pay... 1 coin increase" -> "pay... 1 coin to 
> increase"]
>
> }
>
> -twg
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Contracts

This doesn't work. It possibly tries to destroy Agora, which is
impossible due to power constraints. Since you said "all contracts",
if you can't destroy one, you fail to destroy all of them. Try
"destroy each contract..."

-Aris

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca  wrote:
>
> I create the following proposal yea boi
> Title: No secret contracts
> AI: 2.5
> Text: Destroy all contracts the full text of which has not been posted in
> public. If this destroyed Agora, put it back again the same as it was.
> Nobody will be able to tell the difference.
> Amend the rule "Contracts" by changing "Such an agreement is known as a
> contract." to "When the full text of such an agreement is posted in public,
> it is known as a contract"
>
> --
> From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business




No Faking charges have been done in the past on things like R. Lee's with
the result "that was clearly sarcastic and not meant to fool anyone".

On 7/24/2019 4:34 PM, James Cook wrote:

Trigon - no, because maybe the contract says e can withdraw its 10 Coins.

R. Lee - no, because maybe e knows that the contract actually doesn't
allow em to withdraw Coins anyway. (Slightly less plausible, since eir
message gave me the impression e didn't actually know what's in the
contract.)

I picked on you because I thought I could make a case based on the
fact that your own purported actions alone amounted to more than 10
Coins.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

Trigon - no, because maybe the contract says e can withdraw its 10 Coins.

R. Lee - no, because maybe e knows that the contract actually doesn't
allow em to withdraw Coins anyway. (Slightly less plausible, since eir
message gave me the impression e didn't actually know what's in the
contract.)

I picked on you because I thought I could make a case based on the
fact that your own purported actions alone amounted to more than 10
Coins.

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 17:43, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> Shouldn't these arguments apply just as well to R. Lee and Trigon?
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >> Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
> >> actions related to NSC:
> >>
> >> 2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins  G. -> NSC
> >> 2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins  NSC -> Trigon
> >> 2019-07-22 21:42:  4 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb
> >> 2019-07-22 21:42:  2 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE)
> >> 2019-07-22 21:42:  6 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL)
> >> 2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times
> >>
> >> - Falsifian
> > I Point my Finger at Jason Cobb for violating Rule 2471 (No Faking).
> >
> > Jason Cobb published messages claiming e transferred a total of 12
> > Coins from NSC, when NSC had at most 10 Coins. I can think of three
> > cases:
> >
> > * E did not know the text of NSC, in which case e surely believed eir
> > actions would not be effective, and so violated R2471 with the first
> > attempted action.
> >
> > * E did know the text, and therefore knew specifically which of the
> > actions would fail.
> >
> > * E did know the text, but the text makes it hard for em to know which
> > of the earlier actions would succeed, so e did not know which of the
> > later actions would succeed. This seems unlikely, but I welcome Jason
> > Cobb to try to convince us of this.
> >
> > I do think the statements were made with the intent to mislead: there
> > wis intentionally uncertainty around what NSC is, and Jason Cobb must
> > have known eir statements would add to the confusion.
> >
> > --
> > - Falsifian



-- 
- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Draft Tournament Regulations

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 3:33 PM Aris Merchant
 wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:03 PM Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> >
> > While I'm at it, I've made myself "Eir Supreme Eminence, The Pontifex
> > Maximus and Grand Inquisitor". The inquisitor bit might give
> > contestants some ideas on a possible direction they can take this...
> > (Incidentally, I've had the idea for all of this since last year; the
> > fact that the Church of the Ritual has just happened is an unexpected
> > bonus.)
>
> Okay, on review, I cut the "Grand Inquisitor" business again. It made
> it a bit too unwieldy. I've also added a sentence stating "Contestants
> SHOULD comply with the reasonable directives of Eir Supreme Eminence,
> The Pontifex Maximus", just to make my moral authority over the
> contest clear (it's a should, not a shall, so it's not like I can use
> it to make myself dictator or something).
>
>
> -Aris, Deputy Herald for Birthday Festivities

Another potential problem I've found is that the tournament concludes
immediately, with no time for the judge to make any final
determinations or corrections. To fix that, I've changed the paragraph
on winning to the following:

12. When all contestants except one have been eliminated from the contest,
  the winners are (1) the last contestant remaining and (2) the person
  with the most style points. The judge shall then, with 2 days notice,
  announce them as winners, whereupon they win the tournament and the
  tournament is concluded.

-Aris, Deputy Herald for Birthday Festivities

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Draft Tournament Regulations

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:03 PM Aris Merchant
 wrote:
>
> While I'm at it, I've made myself "Eir Supreme Eminence, The Pontifex
> Maximus and Grand Inquisitor". The inquisitor bit might give
> contestants some ideas on a possible direction they can take this...
> (Incidentally, I've had the idea for all of this since last year; the
> fact that the Church of the Ritual has just happened is an unexpected
> bonus.)

Okay, on review, I cut the "Grand Inquisitor" business again. It made
it a bit too unwieldy. I've also added a sentence stating "Contestants
SHOULD comply with the reasonable directives of Eir Supreme Eminence,
The Pontifex Maximus", just to make my moral authority over the
contest clear (it's a should, not a shall, so it's not like I can use
it to make myself dictator or something).

-Aris, Deputy Herald for Birthday Festivities

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Astronomor] Sector Creation

The last registrar's report listed 25 but nch also registered.. Unless
someone also derregistered?

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:30 AM James Cook  wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 02:03, Rebecca  wrote:
> > So we're lacking a registrar's report for quite a while but I think there
> > are 26 players now and therefore 26 spaceships, so there needs to be 28
> > sectors.
> ...
> > I create the following sectors
> ...
> > Sector 28: Thank God There's Only 28 Sectors Galaxy
> > --
> > From R. Lee
>
> Sorry, I think there are only 25 players, so you never created Sector 28.
>
> --
> - Falsifian
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business


Shouldn't these arguments apply just as well to R. Lee and Trigon?

Jason Cobb

On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote:

Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
actions related to NSC:

2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins  G. -> NSC
2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins  NSC -> Trigon
2019-07-22 21:42:  4 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb
2019-07-22 21:42:  2 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE)
2019-07-22 21:42:  6 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL)
2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times

- Falsifian

I Point my Finger at Jason Cobb for violating Rule 2471 (No Faking).

Jason Cobb published messages claiming e transferred a total of 12
Coins from NSC, when NSC had at most 10 Coins. I can think of three
cases:

* E did not know the text of NSC, in which case e surely believed eir
actions would not be effective, and so violated R2471 with the first
attempted action.

* E did know the text, and therefore knew specifically which of the
actions would fail.

* E did know the text, but the text makes it hard for em to know which
of the earlier actions would succeed, so e did not know which of the
later actions would succeed. This seems unlikely, but I welcome Jason
Cobb to try to convince us of this.

I do think the statements were made with the intent to mislead: there
wis intentionally uncertainty around what NSC is, and Jason Cobb must
have known eir statements would add to the confusion.

--
- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Phantom Strike

nch discovered a loophole in the Spaaace! rules where e might win a
space battle automatically if e doesn't have a spaceship when it comes
time to resolve the battle. I haven't been following closely enough to
know if the current opinion is that that works.

However, it's fairly clear that we can destroy and create spaceships
at will (creating only works if you don't currently own one), so
there's not much risk to destroying your spaceship. I recommend
destroying your spaceship just in case nch would otherwise win eir
battle with you, otherwise nch might get a Spaaace! victory. (E
initiated the battles in a message with subject "Phantom Strike".)

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 15:02, David Seeber  wrote:
>
> I am completely lost.. What is going on here?? :0
>
> Get Outlook for Android
>
> 
> From: agora-business  on behalf of 
> James Cook 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 3:48:23 PM
> To: Agora Business 
> Subject: Re: BUS: Phantom Strike
>
> > I destroy my ship named Theseus. As I have no ship, I create a ship named 
> > Theseus. I challenge Falsifian to a space battle. The resolver for this 
> > battle is R. Lee, the astronomor.
>
> I name my spaceship the SS Principessa Jolanda and destroy it.
>
> --
> - Falsifian

-- 
- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: Phantom Strike

2019-07-24 Thread David Seeber

I am completely lost.. What is going on here?? :0

Get Outlook for Android


From: agora-business  on behalf of James 
Cook 
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 3:48:23 PM
To: Agora Business 
Subject: Re: BUS: Phantom Strike

> I destroy my ship named Theseus. As I have no ship, I create a ship named 
> Theseus. I challenge Falsifian to a space battle. The resolver for this 
> battle is R. Lee, the astronomor.

I name my spaceship the SS Principessa Jolanda and destroy it.

--
- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 14:23, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> Remembering that the standard is preponderance of the evidence ("more likely
> than not"), reasonable possibilities that aren't No Faking:
>
> - if e was in the know, one or more transfer messages were genuine but
> simple mistakes.  E.g. if e simply forgot something on the first one (with
> no comment), then the later two were fine.  Those sorts of simple mistakes
> happen all the time when we take actions and I can't find any obligation for
> people to tell when they make mistakes.
>
> - if was in the know, e sent it, realized that the contract was broken
> somehow, modified the contract, and re-sent.
>
> - if e didn't know about the contract, e could have been just throwing
> attempts at the wall to see if stuff succeeded.  There are plenty of
> examples of people doing random stuff like that.

Good points. This casts a lot of doubt on whether my Finger-pointing will work.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

> Yes, "agreement" includes both consent and agreement specified by contract.

I'm confused by the wording. Does that mean both consent and
contract-specified agreement are (possibly different) ways to agree,
or that one doesn't agree unless both conditions (consent and
contract-specified agreement) are satisfied? I guess it's the former,
since I see contracts that e.g. allow someone to unilaterally exit the
contract without explicit consent from the other parties, and we seem
to assume that works.

-- 
- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 22:52, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 22, 2019 10:41 PM, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> > On 7/22/19 6:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> > > > I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract with at least 2
> > > > parties, known as NSC.
> > > > Can you point out in which message(s) - which, per Rule 2519, must be 
> > > > public - the parties consented to the agreement, thereby causing it to 
> > > > become a contract?
> > >
> > > -twg
> >
> > Ehh... not quite.
> >
> > Rule 1742 ("Contracts") reads:
> >
> > > For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both consent and 
> > > agreement specified by contract.
> >
> > The contract could have specified other ways to agree to it, besides
> > public consent.
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
>
> Yes, "agreement" includes both consent and agreement specified by contract.
>
> "By agreement" is the method used to modify or terminate a contract. There is 
> also (nowadays) a prohibition on players becoming parties without eir 
> "agreement". But none of those things form part of the *definition* of a 
> contract:
>
>   Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
>   make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
>   binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
>   is known as a contract.
>
> i.e., if the persons are not consenting, the agreement (whether or not it has 
> been agreed to as specified by contract) is not a contract.
>
> -twg

As Treasuror, if there are no further comments, I'm going to assume
that this reasoning is correct and that the contract NSC never
existed.

Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
actions related to NSC:

2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins  G. -> NSC
2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins  NSC -> Trigon
2019-07-22 21:42:  4 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb
2019-07-22 21:42:  2 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE)
2019-07-22 21:42:  6 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL)
2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times

-- 
- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3760 assigned to omd




On 7/24/2019 1:57 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On 7/23/2019 11:19 PM, omd wrote:

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:48 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

The answer may depend on whether "response to a CoE" is an official duty
(R2143):
    An official duty for an office is any duty that the Rules
    specifically assign to that office's holder in particular
    (regardless of eir identity).


Question: Are you thinking of any particular reason it would depend on
this?  I checked the Rules for clauses mentioning "duty" or "duties"
and I don't see anything relevant.


We've got some precedents (recent-ish) that by common definition a "duty" is
anything a person is REQUIRED to do, so any "the [officer] SHALL" in the
rules is an official duty. (can't remember first context in CFJs I'll see
if I can dig up later).


Oh, but I guess you're right that's not relevant to the discussion - I may
have been misremembering some rules text that didn't exist.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3760 assigned to omd