Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: BU S: Some moves and such
Yes, I agree. Otherwise we'd have to assume that if you just replied to yourself in BUS, every action in quotes would be re-done. (And that's specifically why you need to append a PF rather than just forwarding from DIS to BUS without comment). I'd define the unclarity as "unclear whether you were quoting yourself or doing something new". On Sun, 7 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > If I were judge, I'd say it failed according to your third theory. > Nothing marks that this is something that's actually being done in the > present, rather than a use of the historical present tense. The > interests of the game seem to agree with me, which is relevant for > interpretation according to Rule 217. I could go either way on this > case though. > > -Aris > On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:32 PM D. Margaux wrote: > > > > My current view is that this is consistent with the newly reiterated CFJ on > > clarity. > > > > Under the current text of the Rule, the intended action must be clear and > > unambiguous, but there is not any current requirement that the > > *announcement of intent* itself be made clearly or conspicuously. The new > > proposal should address that, but I think this apathy declaration might > > have worked in the meantime... > > > > Anyone else have a view? > > > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:19 AM D Margaux wrote: > > > > > :-D > > > > > > I think there are a bunch of reasonable outcomes to this CFJ. > > > > > > 1. Maybe the intent is clear and unambiguous, despite where it is placed > > > in the message, because the sentence itself is written in the customary > > > Agoran way of stating an intent and it was not preceded by a “>” (the > > > customary way of indicating a quoted message). > > > > > > 2. The intent isn’t clear because it was embedded in the “history” portion > > > of the message, and actions placed there are always ipso facto “unclear” > > > because obfuscated. > > > > > > 3. The intent isn’t clear because it was placed in the “history” portion > > > of the message and wasn’t specifically and clearly designated to be a new > > > message separate from the surrounding history. > > > > > > I could see any of these being right, and I’m not sure they’re resolved by > > > the recent apathy CFJ that is presently under reconsideration. Maybe #3 > > > strikes the right balance. > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > > > Notice of Honour > > > > > > > > +1 D. Margaux (managing to sneak this one past me) > > > > -1 Kenyon (arbitrarily selected zombie) > > > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > >> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 12:43 PM, D Margaux < > > > dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> From my email of 29 Sep 2018 at 8:34 AM ET: > > > >> > > > >>> i intend without objection to declare ap- > > > >>> athy specifying d margaux > > > >> > > > >> Having heard no objection, I declare apathy specifying D. Margaux. > > > >> > > > >> CFJ barring Aris: “D. Margaux’s declaration of apathy in this message > > > was EFFECTIVE.” > > > >> > > > >> Thought it was worth exploring another situation where definition may > > > be needed tor “clear,” “unambiguous,” and “clear and unambiguous” . . . > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: BU S: Some moves and such
If I were judge, I'd say it failed according to your third theory. Nothing marks that this is something that's actually being done in the present, rather than a use of the historical present tense. The interests of the game seem to agree with me, which is relevant for interpretation according to Rule 217. I could go either way on this case though. -Aris On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:32 PM D. Margaux wrote: > > My current view is that this is consistent with the newly reiterated CFJ on > clarity. > > Under the current text of the Rule, the intended action must be clear and > unambiguous, but there is not any current requirement that the > *announcement of intent* itself be made clearly or conspicuously. The new > proposal should address that, but I think this apathy declaration might > have worked in the meantime... > > Anyone else have a view? > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:19 AM D Margaux wrote: > > > :-D > > > > I think there are a bunch of reasonable outcomes to this CFJ. > > > > 1. Maybe the intent is clear and unambiguous, despite where it is placed > > in the message, because the sentence itself is written in the customary > > Agoran way of stating an intent and it was not preceded by a “>” (the > > customary way of indicating a quoted message). > > > > 2. The intent isn’t clear because it was embedded in the “history” portion > > of the message, and actions placed there are always ipso facto “unclear” > > because obfuscated. > > > > 3. The intent isn’t clear because it was placed in the “history” portion > > of the message and wasn’t specifically and clearly designated to be a new > > message separate from the surrounding history. > > > > I could see any of these being right, and I’m not sure they’re resolved by > > the recent apathy CFJ that is presently under reconsideration. Maybe #3 > > strikes the right balance. > > > > > On Oct 3, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > Notice of Honour > > > > > > +1 D. Margaux (managing to sneak this one past me) > > > -1 Kenyon (arbitrarily selected zombie) > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > >> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 12:43 PM, D Margaux < > > dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> From my email of 29 Sep 2018 at 8:34 AM ET: > > >> > > >>> i intend without objection to declare ap- > > >>> athy specifying d margaux > > >> > > >> Having heard no objection, I declare apathy specifying D. Margaux. > > >> > > >> CFJ barring Aris: “D. Margaux’s declaration of apathy in this message > > was EFFECTIVE.” > > >> > > >> Thought it was worth exploring another situation where definition may > > be needed tor “clear,” “unambiguous,” and “clear and unambiguous” . . . > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: BU S: Some moves and such
My current view is that this is consistent with the newly reiterated CFJ on clarity. Under the current text of the Rule, the intended action must be clear and unambiguous, but there is not any current requirement that the *announcement of intent* itself be made clearly or conspicuously. The new proposal should address that, but I think this apathy declaration might have worked in the meantime... Anyone else have a view? On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:19 AM D Margaux wrote: > :-D > > I think there are a bunch of reasonable outcomes to this CFJ. > > 1. Maybe the intent is clear and unambiguous, despite where it is placed > in the message, because the sentence itself is written in the customary > Agoran way of stating an intent and it was not preceded by a “>” (the > customary way of indicating a quoted message). > > 2. The intent isn’t clear because it was embedded in the “history” portion > of the message, and actions placed there are always ipso facto “unclear” > because obfuscated. > > 3. The intent isn’t clear because it was placed in the “history” portion > of the message and wasn’t specifically and clearly designated to be a new > message separate from the surrounding history. > > I could see any of these being right, and I’m not sure they’re resolved by > the recent apathy CFJ that is presently under reconsideration. Maybe #3 > strikes the right balance. > > > On Oct 3, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > Notice of Honour > > > > +1 D. Margaux (managing to sneak this one past me) > > -1 Kenyon (arbitrarily selected zombie) > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > >> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 12:43 PM, D Margaux < > dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> From my email of 29 Sep 2018 at 8:34 AM ET: > >> > >>> i intend without objection to declare ap- > >>> athy specifying d margaux > >> > >> Having heard no objection, I declare apathy specifying D. Margaux. > >> > >> CFJ barring Aris: “D. Margaux’s declaration of apathy in this message > was EFFECTIVE.” > >> > >> Thought it was worth exploring another situation where definition may > be needed tor “clear,” “unambiguous,” and “clear and unambiguous” . . . > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: RE: BU S: Some moves and such
:-D I think there are a bunch of reasonable outcomes to this CFJ. 1. Maybe the intent is clear and unambiguous, despite where it is placed in the message, because the sentence itself is written in the customary Agoran way of stating an intent and it was not preceded by a “>” (the customary way of indicating a quoted message). 2. The intent isn’t clear because it was embedded in the “history” portion of the message, and actions placed there are always ipso facto “unclear” because obfuscated. 3. The intent isn’t clear because it was placed in the “history” portion of the message and wasn’t specifically and clearly designated to be a new message separate from the surrounding history. I could see any of these being right, and I’m not sure they’re resolved by the recent apathy CFJ that is presently under reconsideration. Maybe #3 strikes the right balance. > On Oct 3, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Notice of Honour > > +1 D. Margaux (managing to sneak this one past me) > -1 Kenyon (arbitrarily selected zombie) > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 12:43 PM, D Margaux >> wrote: >> >> From my email of 29 Sep 2018 at 8:34 AM ET: >> >>> i intend without objection to declare ap- >>> athy specifying d margaux >> >> Having heard no objection, I declare apathy specifying D. Margaux. >> >> CFJ barring Aris: “D. Margaux’s declaration of apathy in this message was >> EFFECTIVE.” >> >> Thought it was worth exploring another situation where definition may be >> needed tor “clear,” “unambiguous,” and “clear and unambiguous” . . . > >
DIS: Re: BUS: RE: BU S: Some moves and such
Unfortunately this wouldn't converge the gamestate because, if these actions succeed, your location is now different to what it was before. I don't believe they do succeed, though (and I see Trigon has made the same decision in eir Cartographor report just now), because even if the contract is invalid, D. Margaux has your reasonably implied consent to loot your facilities, so it's academic. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, September 30, 2018 10:06 PM, Corona wrote: > PF > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 12:06 AM Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > To converge the gamestate, I perform the following actions (all > > INEFFECTIVE if I have successfully given everything to D. Margaux): > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, 2). > > I spend 1 apple to move to (1, 2). > > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 2) and take all the assets from the > > facility at that location. > > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 1) and take all the assets from the > > facility at that location. > > I spend 1 apple to move to (3, 1). > > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 1) > > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 0) > > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, -1) and take all the assets from the > > facility at that location. > > I spend 2 apples to move to (2, -2) and take all the assets from the > > facility at that location. > > I spend 1 apple to move to (1, -2) and take all the assets from the > > facility at that location. > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -2) > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -3). > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -2) > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -1) > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-1, -1) > > I spend 2 apples to move to (-2, -1). > > I spend 2 apples to move to (-2, 0) and take all the assets from the > > facility at that location. > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-3, 0) and take all the assets from the > > facility at that location. > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-4, 0) and take all the assets from the > > facility at that location. > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-5, 0) and take all the assets from the > > facility at that location. > > I pay the following upkeep for the following facilities: > > 7 (+2, +2) 2 Mine 2 lumber > > A (+2, -1) 2 Mine 2 lumber > > G (-3, 0) 2 Mine 2 lumber > > 8 (+2, +1) 2 Orchard 2 stones > > B (+2, -2) 2 Orchard 2 stones > > F (-2, 0) 2 Orchard 2 stones > > J (-4, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones > > K (-5, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones > > C (+1, -2) 2 Farm 1 lumber & 1 stone > > I transfer all my liquid assets to D. Margaux > > ~Corona > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 1:41 AM D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > No idea if I got this all correct. But here goes. > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, 2). > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (1, 2). > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 2) and take all the assets from the > > > facility at that location. > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 1) and take all the assets from the > > > facility at that location. > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (3, 1). > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 1) > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 0) > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, -1) and take all the assets from the > > > facility at that location. > > > I spend 2 apples to move to (2, -2) and take all the assets from the > > > facility at that location. > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (1, -2) and take all the assets from the > > > facility at that location. > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -2) > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -3). > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -2) > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -1) > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-1, -1) > > > I spend 2 apples to move to (-2, -1). > > > I spend 2 apples to move to (-2, 0) and take all the assets from the > > > facility at that location. > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-3, 0) and take all the assets from the > > > facility at that location. > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-4, 0) and take all the assets from the > > > facility at that location. > > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-5, 0) and take all the assets from the > > > facility at that location. > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:34 AM D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > I pay 1 apple to move to (-1, 2). I pay 1 apple to move to (0, 2). I > > > > take the coins at (0, 2). > > > > [Comment: I am pretty confident that I can do this, even if the > > > > initial transfer was > > > > INEFFECTIVE, because I have Corona's implied consent] > > > > If Corona has transferred these facilities to me, then I pay the > > > > following upkeep > > > > for the following facilities: > > > > 6 ( 0, +2) Refinery 3 steel > > > > 7 (+2, +2) 2 Mine 2 lumber > > > > A (+2, -1) 2 Mine 2 lumber > > > > G (-3, 0) 2 Mine 2 lumber > > > > 8 (+2, +1) 2 Orchard 2 stones > > > > B (+2, -2) 2 Orchard 2 stones > > > > F (-2, 0) 2 Orchard 2 stones > > > > J (-4, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones > > > > K (-5, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones > > > > C (+1, -2) 2 Farm 1 lumber & 1 stone > > > > If Corona has not transferred those facilities to me, then I
DIS: Re: BUS: RE: BU S: Some moves and such
To converge the gamestate, I perform the following actions (all INEFFECTIVE if I have successfully given everything to D. Margaux): I spend 1 apple to move to (0, 2). I spend 1 apple to move to (1, 2). I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 2) and take all the assets from the facility at that location. I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 1) and take all the assets from the facility at that location. I spend 1 apple to move to (3, 1). I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 1) I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 0) I spend 1 apple to move to (2, -1) and take all the assets from the facility at that location. I spend 2 apples to move to (2, -2) and take all the assets from the facility at that location. I spend 1 apple to move to (1, -2) and take all the assets from the facility at that location. I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -2) I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -3). I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -2) I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -1) I spend 1 apple to move to (-1, -1) I spend 2 apples to move to (-2, -1). I spend 2 apples to move to (-2, 0) and take all the assets from the facility at that location. I spend 1 apple to move to (-3, 0) and take all the assets from the facility at that location. I spend 1 apple to move to (-4, 0) and take all the assets from the facility at that location. I spend 1 apple to move to (-5, 0) and take all the assets from the facility at that location. I pay the following upkeep for the following facilities: 7(+2, +2) 2 Mine2 lumber A(+2, -1) 2 Mine2 lumber G(-3, 0) 2 Mine2 lumber 8(+2, +1) 2 Orchard 2 stones B(+2, -2) 2 Orchard 2 stones F(-2, 0) 2 Orchard 2 stones J(-4, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones K(-5, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones C(+1, -2) 2 Farm1 lumber & 1 stone I transfer all my liquid assets to D. Margaux ~Corona On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 1:41 AM D Margaux wrote: > No idea if I got this all correct. But here goes. > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, 2). > I spend 1 apple to move to (1, 2). > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 2) and take all the assets from the > facility at that location. > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 1) and take all the assets from the > facility at that location. > I spend 1 apple to move to (3, 1). > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 1) > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 0) > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, -1) and take all the assets from the > facility at that location. > I spend 2 apples to move to (2, -2) and take all the assets from the > facility at that location. > I spend 1 apple to move to (1, -2) and take all the assets from the > facility at that location. > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -2) > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -3). > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -2) > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -1) > I spend 1 apple to move to (-1, -1) > I spend 2 apples to move to (-2, -1). > I spend 2 apples to move to (-2, 0) and take all the assets from the > facility at that location. > I spend 1 apple to move to (-3, 0) and take all the assets from the > facility at that location. > I spend 1 apple to move to (-4, 0) and take all the assets from the > facility at that location. > I spend 1 apple to move to (-5, 0) and take all the assets from the > facility at that location. > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:34 AM D Margaux wrote: > > > > I pay 1 apple to move to (-1, 2). I pay 1 apple to move to (0, 2). I > > take the coins at (0, 2). > > [Comment: I am pretty confident that I can do this, even if the > > initial transfer was > > INEFFECTIVE, because I have Corona's implied consent] > > > > If Corona has transferred these facilities to me, then I pay the > > following upkeep > > for the following facilities: > > > > 6( 0, +2) Refinery3 steel > > 7(+2, +2) 2 Mine2 lumber > > A(+2, -1) 2 Mine2 lumber > > G(-3, 0) 2 Mine2 lumber > > 8(+2, +1) 2 Orchard 2 stones > > B(+2, -2) 2 Orchard 2 stones > > F(-2, 0) 2 Orchard 2 stones > > J(-4, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones > > K(-5, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones > > C(+1, -2) 2 Farm1 lumber & 1 stone > > > > If Corona has not transferred those facilities to me, then I still pay > > the upkeep > > specified above if and only if those payments of upkeep are EFFECTIVE > > to prevent the facilities from being destroyed. > > > > [Comment: For example, maybe I can pay the upkeep by Corona's implied > consent-- > > but if my payments are not EFFECTIVE to prevent their destruction, then > I don't > > want to spend the money. Am I doing this right..?] > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:32 PM D Margaux wrote: > > > > > > I transfer 3 apples to nichdel. > > > > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (0, 1), then 1 apple to move > to (-1, 1), then 1 apple to move to (-2, 1). > > > > > > I cause nichdel to take all the assets at (-2, 1). > > > > > > I pay the required upkeep for my rank 2 mine at
DIS: Re: BUS: RE: BU S: Some moves and such
Only the owner of a facility can pay its upkeep (R2560), so your second attempt is INEFFECTIVE regardless of whether or not your first attempt is. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, September 29, 2018 12:34 PM, D Margaux wrote: > I pay 1 apple to move to (-1, 2). I pay 1 apple to move to (0, 2). I > take the coins at (0, 2). > [Comment: I am pretty confident that I can do this, even if the > initial transfer was > INEFFECTIVE, because I have Corona's implied consent] > > If Corona has transferred these facilities to me, then I pay the > following upkeep > for the following facilities: > > 6 ( 0, +2) Refinery 3 steel > 7 (+2, +2) 2 Mine 2 lumber > A (+2, -1) 2 Mine 2 lumber > G (-3, 0) 2 Mine 2 lumber > 8 (+2, +1) 2 Orchard 2 stones > B (+2, -2) 2 Orchard 2 stones > F (-2, 0) 2 Orchard 2 stones > J (-4, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones > K (-5, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones > C (+1, -2) 2 Farm 1 lumber & 1 stone > > If Corona has not transferred those facilities to me, then I still pay > the upkeep > specified above if and only if those payments of upkeep are EFFECTIVE > to prevent the facilities from being destroyed. > > [Comment: For example, maybe I can pay the upkeep by Corona's implied > consent-- > but if my payments are not EFFECTIVE to prevent their destruction, then I > don't > want to spend the money. Am I doing this right..?] > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:32 PM D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I transfer 3 apples to nichdel. > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (0, 1), then 1 apple to move to > > (-1, 1), then 1 apple to move to (-2, 1). > > I cause nichdel to take all the assets at (-2, 1). > > I pay the required upkeep for my rank 2 mine at (-2, 2) (I think 2 lumber). > > I take all the assets at (-2, 2). > > I high-five twg, who I think is still here at (-2, 2). > > I cause nichdel to transfer to me all eir liquid assets except not eir > > coins. > > I spend 5 stones to build an orchard at (-3, 1) (the parcel of land I stole > > by self-ratification). > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:41 AM D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > I cause nichdel to take the assets at (1, 1). (I think 24 stones and 16 > > > ore.) > > > I cause nichdel to transfer all eir stones and ore to D Margaux. > > > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 1:48 PM D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > Moves on behalf of nichdel: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (0, 1). > > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (-1, 1). > > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (-2, 1). > > > > I cause nichdel pay 3 apples to stake a land claim to (-3, 1) with > > > > land type Black. > > > > I cause nichdel to transfer the land at (-3, 1) to D. Margaux. > > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (-2, 1). > > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (-1, 1). > > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (0, 1). > > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (1, 1). > > > > I cause nichdel to transfer all transferable assets in eir possession > > > > to D. Margaux. (I think that's 10 apples, 5 steel, & 8 paper.) > > > > > > > > Moves on behalf of myself: > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > I take the assets from the mine at (-2, 2). (I think that's 3 stones & > > > > 2 ore.) > > > > I pay 3 steel and 2 lumber to upgrade the mine at (-2, 2) to rank 2. > > > > On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 4:04 PM D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > I pay 3 apples to Stake a Land Claim to (-2, 2) with land type Black. > > > > > I pay 5 lumber to build a mine on (-2, 2). > > i intend without objection to declare ap- > athy specifying d margaux > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:35 PM D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I pay an apple to move to (0, 1) > > > > > > I pay an apple to move to (-1, 1) > > > > > > I take all the assets located at (-1, 1). > > > > > > I pay 3 apples to Stake a Claim to (-2, 1) with land type Black. > > > > > > I pay 3 lumber and 4 stones build a farm on (-2, 1). > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > D. Margaux > > > > > > -- > > > D. Margaux > > -- > D. Margaux
