Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 17:33 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > CFJ 3383 provides strong guidance on interpreting r. 101. Fool
> > allegedly violated r. 101 by purporting to deregister all other
> > players, and by subsequently locking them out of the game. GUILTY on
> > judgement, unresolved on appeal, and apparently still assigned to
> > Walker, woggle, and Wooble. (Right Honourable Arbitor, you may wish
> > to resolve this.)
> 
> The appeal would have silently ceased to exist at the point where
> appeals were repealed from the rules.
> 
> Exactly the same thing happened to the last equity case ever; it had
> severe trouble finding a judge, and then the rules for equity cases
> were repealed, so it just disappeared. (Equity cases were a method of
> ruling on disputes related to the spirit of contracts, contracts being
> kind-of similar to Organisations. One of the rules relating to them was
> that an equity case couldn't be judged by a contract's member, and some
> contracts had a *lot* of members. So finding an appropriate judge could
> be very difficult back then, and the contract in question was basically
> the main driver of Agora's economy, thus almost everyone was
> participating in it.)

Lots of people also permanently Disfavored equity cases because they 
didn't want to deal with them, that didn't help, so it was painfully hard
to find someone interested in judging those cases but not interested in
being a member (and I remember that being one reason we ended that
particular experiment).

Fortunately, I think we repealed R101 before we repealed the appeals
process, so we didn't violate Fools right to appeal... :).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 17:33 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> CFJ 3383 provides strong guidance on interpreting r. 101. Fool
> allegedly violated r. 101 by purporting to deregister all other
> players, and by subsequently locking them out of the game. GUILTY on
> judgement, unresolved on appeal, and apparently still assigned to
> Walker, woggle, and Wooble. (Right Honourable Arbitor, you may wish
> to resolve this.)

The appeal would have silently ceased to exist at the point where
appeals were repealed from the rules.

Exactly the same thing happened to the last equity case ever; it had
severe trouble finding a judge, and then the rules for equity cases
were repealed, so it just disappeared. (Equity cases were a method of
ruling on disputes related to the spirit of contracts, contracts being
kind-of similar to Organisations. One of the rules relating to them was
that an equity case couldn't be judged by a contract's member, and some
contracts had a *lot* of members. So finding an appropriate judge could
be very difficult back then, and the contract in question was basically
the main driver of Agora's economy, thus almost everyone was
participating in it.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I’ll note that it’s not obvious that Rule 101 (“The Game of Agora”) can be 
> broken. 
> The relevant clause is:
> 
> > **Please** treat Agora Right Good Forever.
> 
> (Emphasis mine.)
> 
> However, game tradition takes this “Please” as a constraint, and not a polite 
> request, and I abide by that tradition.

The "Please" is covered nicely by ais523 in CFJ 1945:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1945

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jul 9, 2017, at 9:50 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever.
> 
> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to CB
> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to
> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB does
> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player.
> 
> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a single
> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or
> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to anyone
> but emself.

I’ll note that it’s not obvious that Rule 101 (“The Game of Agora”) can be 
broken. The relevant clause is:

> **Please** treat Agora Right Good Forever.

(Emphasis mine.)

However, game tradition takes this “Please” as a constraint, and not a polite 
request, and I abide by that tradition.

CFJ 3383 provides strong guidance on interpreting r. 101. Fool allegedly 
violated r. 101 by purporting to deregister all other players, and by 
subsequently locking them out of the game. GUILTY on judgement, unresolved on 
appeal, and apparently still assigned to Walker, woggle, and Wooble. (Right 
Honourable Arbitor, you may wish to resolve this.)

The Honourable Judge Ienpw III found against Fool on this basis, cited from CFJ 
3107:

> I would say that the test on whether an act violates the "right good forever" 
> clause is whether the act is BOTH (a) truly ethically, and morally repugnant, 
> or against the spirit of nomic as a whole and (b) something that the actor 
> has maliciously foreseen could lead directly and immediately to Agora's 
> effective and irrecoverable demise as a nomic.

This is an extremely high bar. While Cuddlebeam has been the object of broad 
reproach, I remain unconvinced either that eir poor conduct is ethically and 
morally repugnant, or that it is so extreme as to foreseeably lead directly and 
immediately to Agora’s demise as a nomic.

Extensive use - some might even say abuse - of the Call for Judgement system to 
test abstruse philosophical matters, rather than to resolve bona fide gameplay 
disagreements, will inevitably have a chilling effect on playing Agora. So will 
attempting to perform actions clearly contrary to the spirit of the rules, 
using frankly perverse interpretations of those rules. If players cannot be 
sure that the rules mean what they appear to mean, and if gameplay is delayed 
to account for the positioning of angels on pinheads rather than to determine 
how to apply the rules to situations actually before us, eventually, play will 
be too onerous for all but the most determined player.

However, the chilling effect of these actions is neither immediate nor direct, 
and it does not inevitably lead to the demise of Agora or to its conversion to 
a non-nomic. I believe a resolution to these issues lies within reach of the 
current rule-making system, and need not be achieved through Cards.

Accordingly, I find this finger-pointing to be Shenanigans.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Owen Jacobson]

Indeed! By constraining both the length and the content, Yellow Cards create an 
interesting creative challenge, too.

All in all, one of my favourite mechanics.

Cuddlebeam already has an outstanding Yellow Card, and eir voting strength is 
zero for a few more days. I think I missed that in some recent ballots; I’m 
inclined to let it slide as I’m not sure any are recent enough to CoE, or that 
the results would change if I did.

-o

> On Jul 14, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> I like coming up with interesting wordlists. They're fun to compile and 
> evidently the result is reasonably well-received, although I think o is the 
> only person whose been on the receiving end of my lists.
> 
> 天火狐
> 
> On 14 July 2017 at 00:58, Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2017, at 9:53 PM, Aris Merchant  > wrote:
> 
> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue
> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have
> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent.
> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game
> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card.
> 
> 
> I find this finger-pointing to be Shenanigans, based on the testimony of the 
> accused:
> 
> > I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe it had at 
> > least a slither of chance of working.
> 
> 
> Quite a number of scams in Agora’s past have relied on creative 
> interpretations of the rules, and while I personally believe there’s no way 
> this scam could work, I believe carding Cuddlebeam would unjustifiably punish 
> em for a bona fide attempt.
> 
> Had I found otherwise, I would have issued a Yellow Card, not a Red Card. In 
> spite of the colour theme of the Cards, I find that a Yellow Card is 
> considerably more severe than a Red Card, especially if paired with a 
> challenging word list. It’s also easier to justify a Yellow Card in the face 
> of the accusations against Cuddlebeam in this finger-pointing. (This is, 
> perhaps, not working as intended.)
> 
> Instead, I’ll reinforce ais523’s advice to find a co-conspirator for future 
> scams, and 天火狐’s observation that such tactics have very much worn out their 
> welcome.
> 
> -o
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Josh T]

I like coming up with interesting wordlists. They're fun to compile and
evidently the result is reasonably well-received, although I think o is the
only person whose been on the receiving end of my lists.

天火狐

On 14 July 2017 at 00:58, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2017, at 9:53 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue
> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have
> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent.
> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game
> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card.
>
>
> I find this finger-pointing to be Shenanigans, based on the testimony of
> the accused:
>
> > I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe it had at
> least a slither of chance of working.
>
>
> Quite a number of scams in Agora’s past have relied on creative
> interpretations of the rules, and while I personally believe there’s no way
> this scam could work, I believe carding Cuddlebeam would unjustifiably
> punish em for a bona fide attempt.
>
> Had I found otherwise, I would have issued a Yellow Card, not a Red Card.
> In spite of the colour theme of the Cards, I find that a Yellow Card is
> considerably more severe than a Red Card, especially if paired with a
> challenging word list. It’s also easier to justify a Yellow Card in the
> face of the accusations against Cuddlebeam in this finger-pointing. (This
> is, perhaps, not working as intended.)
>
> Instead, I’ll reinforce ais523’s advice to find a co-conspirator for
> future scams, and 天火狐’s observation that such tactics have very much worn
> out their welcome.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jul 9, 2017, at 9:50 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> I would support, with a fair implementation.
> 
> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever.
> 
> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to CB
> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to
> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB does
> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player.
> 
> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a single
> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or
> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to anyone
> but emself.

It is unfortunate that I have only seven days to review and decide on this, as 
these are serious allegations that merit serious consideration.

Would any interested parties please submit arguments within the next 36 hours? 
I believe that leaves me time to review them, and to review relevant CFJs, 
before the deadline of July 17th, 01:50:23 UTC. In the absence of arguments, 
I’ll still pass judgement, but I fear my knowledge of Agoran custom and rules 
may not be up to the task, and there’s no appeals process for Cards.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jul 9, 2017, at 8:53 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> Via "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner 
> to another entity by announcement", I announce that I transfer all assets to 
> myself.

Absent a CFJ to the contrary, I see no way this can possibly work as evidently 
intended.

There’s a fair degree of practice and precedent around “generally” clauses 
already. Rule 105 (“Rule Changes”), for example, allows instruments to 
“generally” amend the text of a rule - but there’s no dispute that rule 1030 
(“Precedence between Rules”) restricts instruments from amending rules if such 
an amendment would allow a rule to directly take precedence over rule 1030 for 
the purposes of determining rule precedence, or that rule 1689 (“Agora Is A 
Nomic”) prevents an instrument from causing Agora to become ossified by 
amending a rule. These are long-standing norms and necessary safety features to 
keep poorly-considered rule changes from completely stalling the game.

Thus, I shall, for the purposes of the offices I hold, record the actions in 
Cuddlebeam's message in the following manner:

* e created a proposal.
* e paid all of eir shinies (I believe the amount to be 18, but hold for the 
report) to pend it.
* e created a second proposal.
* e paid zero shinies, and presumably failed to pend it.
* e destroyed any destructible assets e holds. I believe there are no such 
assets.

If there is a contrary CFJ, then I’ll mark the appropriate report entries as 
provisional in future reports until the CFJ is resolved, then publish future 
reports following the result of the CFJ, as normal. I’m not interested in 
starting this CFJ, unless someone feels like supporting Cuddlebeam’s 
interpretation of the rules - in which case, if you beat me to it, please enter 
this message in evidence!

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 02:53 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
> In the case that it actually is stalwart, then, yeah. Vote for it or we
> won't have proposals for a while, because there is no cash to actually pend
> anything with (in fact, not voting for it could be criminal, for the same
> reason that the stick-up itself would be, which is enabling boring
> gameplay. Although I find stick-ups themselves to be pretty exciting lol).

Even assuming the scam worked (and it clearly didn't), there are
emergency methods of fixing the gamestate available. The without-3-
objections mechanism in rule 1607 (which allows for the distribution of
a non-pending proposal) would likely be the least damaging.

I note that, as a side effect, you managed to waste all your own
Shinies (regardless of whether or not the scam succeeded), and still
have no way to force the proposals through. You can /create/ a proposal
with no Shinies at all; the shinies are merely needed to /pend/ it.
That said, I recommend retracting the proposals so as not to make extra
work for the Promotor in tracking them.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[omd]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:03 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, omd wrote:
>> There's no law,
>> for example, that we have to care about the true Platonic gamestate,
>> no law that if we discover something's been done wrong (and not
>> mitigated through rule-defined mechanisms such as ratification), we
>> have to go back and recalculate everything.  We could instead just
>> collectively agree to ignore it.
>
> Actually, I think of the current self-ratification system as a
> compromise between the recalculators and the just-ignore-it-ors.

Depends on how you look at it.  It's a compromise in terms of everyday
procedure, but it's one that enshrines platonism as the fundamental
basis of the game.  At a meta level, Agora is still defined as 'the
platonic evolution of a gamestate that began in 1993' (in theory,
anyway - something's probably broken since then but nobody knows
what), not as 'what the players want to play'.  If anything, the
existence of self-ratification reinforces that.

One consequence is that scams have true power, rather than existing at
the pleasure of the playerbase.  Even if a scamster acts in bad form
and pisses off all the other players, they can't just say "yeah,
whatever, let's just ignore what you did and keep playing without
you".  Well, they could, but then they wouldn't be playing Agora any
longer, at least in my view.

Is this a good thing?  Well, if a scamster acted in /really/ bad form
and managed to end the game or something, we might come to regret it.
But there's a slippery slope: 'bad form' is subjective, and given the
tendency of scams to raise heated emotions, players might be tempted
to propose forking the game in much less egregious scenarios.  What's
worse, without a formal procedure for resolving which fork should win,
you might end up with a standoff where half the players support one
gamestate and the other half support a different one.  Of course,
platonic Agora needs to resolve disputes at a meta-level too, when
there are questions of interpretation, and if players start refusing
to accept the outcome of the CFJ system (maybe because a dictator
tried to mess with it), we could end up with a similar split.
Conversely, in a hypothetical pragmatic Agora, we could empower the
CFJ system to determine what gamestate we should continue playing
with, or even define a voting procedure.  But with CFJs as they are
today, the judge is theoretically tasked with determining the
/correct/ outcome, not eir /preferred/ outcome; if e rules against a
scamster, e's not sending the message "I'd rather play without you"
(which could be hurtful), but "you tried but failed".  Of course, the
waters are muddied somewhat by the presence of "best interests of the
game" as a factor (which is often interpreted as "anti-scam"), and the
general arbitrariness of rulings in ambiguous cases... but overall,
CFJs still feel like a truth-seeking mission, not a popularity
contest.

In this way, platonism arguably protects both scamsters and their
opponents, by providing certainty about how play should continue.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, omd wrote:
> There's no law,
> for example, that we have to care about the true Platonic gamestate,
> no law that if we discover something's been done wrong (and not
> mitigated through rule-defined mechanisms such as ratification), we
> have to go back and recalculate everything.  We could instead just
> collectively agree to ignore it.

Actually, I think of the current self-ratification system as a
compromise between the recalculators and the just-ignore-it-ors.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[omd]

I just started playing again, so I can't really judge CuddleBeam's
attitude or whatever.  But as someone who's a fan of scams and has
perpetrated many in the past:

Scams are a balance.  On one hand, by pulling a scam you're inherently
taking a toll on other players.  A practical toll, because you're
probably disrupting the gamestate (often blocking legitimate play);
creating diverging game histories due to multiple possible
interpretations; obligating many players to investigate whatever
corner of the ruleset you're talking about, in order to discuss the
merits of the scam and potentially plan countermeasures; and in
particular obligating at least one judge to write up a formal
evaluation.  And an emotional toll, because you're making 'enemies'
(or at least opponents) of other players in what's usually a pretty
cooperative game; because you're usually trying to 'take over' the
game in some way (or in mousetrap-type scams, even worse, 'taking
over' other *players*); and because, well, scams have an inherent
aspect of "look how clever I am, I noticed this and you didn't".

...On the other hand.

Investigating the ruleset, writing judgements, and taking optimal game
actions are core parts of the game!  Ideally, they shouldn't be seen
as a burden but as gameplay: gameplay the scamster deserves credit for
creating, just like we give credit to authors of proposals for new
gameplay mechanisms.

Navel-gazing, overly literal interpretations of rules, logic bombs:
all these are part of Agora's ethos to some extent.  There's no law,
for example, that we have to care about the true Platonic gamestate,
no law that if we discover something's been done wrong (and not
mitigated through rule-defined mechanisms such as ratification), we
have to go back and recalculate everything.  We could instead just
collectively agree to ignore it; things would be a lot simpler that
way, and all that would be harmed is some abstract idea of correctness
with no inherent importance.  But we don't do that..  Platonism vs.
pragmatism has been debated since the beginning of this game [1], but
overall we've basically stuck to platonism - perhaps because even
though it's by far the more troublesome option, it's usually *fun* to
deal with the consequences.  Similarly, there's no law that in nomics
the text of the rules has to take precedent over intent.  In real
legal systems it's all about intent, and while there are certainly
tricky legislative maneuvers, debates over intent, and the like, there
could never be the kind of literal-wording scams, blatantly contrary
to intent, that have often been judged effective in Agora.  Legal vs.
logical is another of Agora's great debates, and here we've swayed
more towards 'legal' than contemporary nomics, but there's still a
whole lot of 'logical' - the more troublesome option - again, largely
because it's fun to deal with the consequences.

And when it comes to the emotional toll, well, if you really did find
a flaw, and did the work to exploit it correctly, then you *are*
clever, and perhaps you deserve to take a victory lap.

...In practice?  There's certainly a tradition that scams are a
legitimate part of the game.  But there's an equally persistent
tradition of players getting upset at scamsters and often leaving in a
huff.

But it helps if you're right.  If you're wrong, at least if you're
obviously wrong (perhaps because you didn't do the research), then you
haven't held up your side of the bargain.  You haven't demonstrated
cleverness to back up the bombast; you haven't created interesting
legal debates to make up for the (potential) gamestate chaos and the
judging work.

Also, real scams are inherently rate limited by the limited prevalence
of flaws in the rules, which helps take off the edge.  And then the
rules get fixed, reducing the availability of scams in the future
(balanced by the natural desire for churn and new rules, which can
create new flaws).  Scams that don't work, on the other hand, well,
there's no shortage of rules that could be scammable under /some/
bizarre interpretation (but not a reasonable interpretation), and they
won't get fixed because there's nothing wrong with them.

So.

CuddleBeam: I'm not saying all of your scams are obviously wrong - I
haven't even seen all of them. [2]  But at least one or two are, and
together with the frequency, I can sympathize with some of the
annoyance.  Nevertheless, please don't get discouraged from scamming
altogether.  At least, I'd be disappointed if you did.

[1] https://github.com/AgoraNomic/wiki/blob/master/wiki/Library/Vanyel.md

[2] actually I just noticed the badge one and I think it's pretty
clever.  although it would need some modification to have a chance of
working, and probably it wouldn't work at all, but still...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[V.J Rada]

Or just like not at all ever.

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I have to agree tbh, and I regret a degree what I've done, given that I'm
> aware that there was a better way to do it. I should've sent that message
> as a hypothetical case to a-d an claim the would-be merit through there
> rather than a-b.
>
> But oh well, next time.
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Josh T  > wrote:
>
>> While I haven't been paying attention to your scams of late due to real
>> life drama and bad timing (family issues; I'm flying to go be with them for
>> a month starting Thursday), I feel that your welcome with such tactics has
>> worn thin.
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>> On 10 July 2017 at 12:17, Cuddle Beam > > wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, they are definitely contradictory at times. I've mentioned before
>>> that I don't have any objective measure to decide what interpretation is
>>> best, so I just use one which does the most interesting thing for me in
>>> hopes that a enough audience agrees with it or a CFJ about it is judged in
>>> my favor, because I don't know which among the myriad of perfectly
>>> reasonable interpretations I will be judged by.
>>>
>>> If you, nichdel and PSS, had opposite (and contradictory)
>>> interpretations on something, I would believe that both are equally valid.
>>> Now, I have many interpretations just like those in mind at any given time
>>> (and many contradictory), and I have no tiebreaker. And even then, my own
>>> opinion about what interpretation is best matters very little when it comes
>>> to resolving my own actions, because in the end, its the audience who is my
>>> judge - it's all of you who have the final word.
>>>
>>> And you all don't unanimously agree with each other. So of course that
>>> the interpretations I use won't agree with each other either.
>>>
>>> So I just shrug and use the ones that are more convenient for me in
>>> hopes that the audience would agree to it (whether I personally agree to it
>>> or not matters little, just my judgement of whether others might be
>>> convinced of it or not. Which in this case was woefully inaccurate, most
>>> likely due to that I just winged it).
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
 They also seem to contradict each other at times.

 On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans > wrote:

> The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is
> fallacious. Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it.
>
> I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing
> the rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are
> nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop
> responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt.
>
> I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as
> good faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they
> all favor your goals.
>
> Cut the bullshit out.
>
> On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam"  > wrote:
>
>> ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for
>> trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I
>> *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a
>> loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded
>> *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the 
>> office
>> somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding,
>> but I just want to understand that part better)
>>
>> All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no
>> faking part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't 
>> believe
>> it had at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I
>> wouldn't have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when
>> just writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it
>> feels heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then
>> again, if it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote
>> FOR lol. But yeah, pretty evil.)
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) <
>> grokag...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant
>>> >> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Cuddle Beam]

I have to agree tbh, and I regret a degree what I've done, given that I'm
aware that there was a better way to do it. I should've sent that message
as a hypothetical case to a-d an claim the would-be merit through there
rather than a-b.

But oh well, next time.

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Josh T  wrote:

> While I haven't been paying attention to your scams of late due to real
> life drama and bad timing (family issues; I'm flying to go be with them for
> a month starting Thursday), I feel that your welcome with such tactics has
> worn thin.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 10 July 2017 at 12:17, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
>> Yes, they are definitely contradictory at times. I've mentioned before
>> that I don't have any objective measure to decide what interpretation is
>> best, so I just use one which does the most interesting thing for me in
>> hopes that a enough audience agrees with it or a CFJ about it is judged in
>> my favor, because I don't know which among the myriad of perfectly
>> reasonable interpretations I will be judged by.
>>
>> If you, nichdel and PSS, had opposite (and contradictory) interpretations
>> on something, I would believe that both are equally valid. Now, I have many
>> interpretations just like those in mind at any given time (and many
>> contradictory), and I have no tiebreaker. And even then, my own opinion
>> about what interpretation is best matters very little when it comes to
>> resolving my own actions, because in the end, its the audience who is my
>> judge - it's all of you who have the final word.
>>
>> And you all don't unanimously agree with each other. So of course that
>> the interpretations I use won't agree with each other either.
>>
>> So I just shrug and use the ones that are more convenient for me in hopes
>> that the audience would agree to it (whether I personally agree to it or
>> not matters little, just my judgement of whether others might be convinced
>> of it or not. Which in this case was woefully inaccurate, most likely due
>> to that I just winged it).
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> They also seem to contradict each other at times.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans  wrote:
>>>
 The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is
 fallacious. Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it.

 I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the
 rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are
 nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop
 responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt.

 I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as
 good faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they
 all favor your goals.

 Cut the bullshit out.

 On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for
> trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I
> *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a
> loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded
> *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the 
> office
> somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding,
> but I just want to understand that part better)
>
> All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no
> faking part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe
> it had at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I
> wouldn't have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when
> just writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it
> feels heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then
> again, if it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote
> FOR lol. But yeah, pretty evil.)
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) <
> grokag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue
>> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably
>> have
>> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent.
>> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game
>> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card.
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans 
>> wrote:
>> >> I would support, with a fair implementation.
>> >>
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Josh T]

While I haven't been paying attention to your scams of late due to real
life drama and bad timing (family issues; I'm flying to go be with them for
a month starting Thursday), I feel that your welcome with such tactics has
worn thin.

天火狐

On 10 July 2017 at 12:17, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Yes, they are definitely contradictory at times. I've mentioned before
> that I don't have any objective measure to decide what interpretation is
> best, so I just use one which does the most interesting thing for me in
> hopes that a enough audience agrees with it or a CFJ about it is judged in
> my favor, because I don't know which among the myriad of perfectly
> reasonable interpretations I will be judged by.
>
> If you, nichdel and PSS, had opposite (and contradictory) interpretations
> on something, I would believe that both are equally valid. Now, I have many
> interpretations just like those in mind at any given time (and many
> contradictory), and I have no tiebreaker. And even then, my own opinion
> about what interpretation is best matters very little when it comes to
> resolving my own actions, because in the end, its the audience who is my
> judge - it's all of you who have the final word.
>
> And you all don't unanimously agree with each other. So of course that the
> interpretations I use won't agree with each other either.
>
> So I just shrug and use the ones that are more convenient for me in hopes
> that the audience would agree to it (whether I personally agree to it or
> not matters little, just my judgement of whether others might be convinced
> of it or not. Which in this case was woefully inaccurate, most likely due
> to that I just winged it).
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They also seem to contradict each other at times.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans  wrote:
>>
>>> The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is
>>> fallacious. Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it.
>>>
>>> I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the
>>> rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are
>>> nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop
>>> responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt.
>>>
>>> I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as
>>> good faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they
>>> all favor your goals.
>>>
>>> Cut the bullshit out.
>>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
>>>
 ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for
 trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I
 *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a
 loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded
 *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office
 somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding,
 but I just want to understand that part better)

 All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no
 faking part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe
 it had at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I
 wouldn't have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when
 just writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it
 feels heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then
 again, if it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote
 FOR lol. But yeah, pretty evil.)

 On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) <
 grokag...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue
> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have
> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent.
> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game
> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> >> I would support, with a fair implementation.
> >>
> >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good
> Forever.
> >>
> >> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response
> to CB
> >> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to
> >> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB
> does
> >> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player.
> >>
> >> I challenge people who 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[V.J Rada]

Yeah the deregistrations and all that CB has caused is not worth it.

I did like his 2.99 super CFJS though. I wonder if we could get criminal
justice done by having people pledge to arbitrate.

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Yes, they are definitely contradictory at times. I've mentioned before
> that I don't have any objective measure to decide what interpretation is
> best, so I just use one which does the most interesting thing for me in
> hopes that a enough audience agrees with it or a CFJ about it is judged in
> my favor, because I don't know which among the myriad of perfectly
> reasonable interpretations I will be judged by.
>
> If you, nichdel and PSS, had opposite (and contradictory) interpretations
> on something, I would believe that both are equally valid. Now, I have many
> interpretations just like those in mind at any given time (and many
> contradictory), and I have no tiebreaker. And even then, my own opinion
> about what interpretation is best matters very little when it comes to
> resolving my own actions, because in the end, its the audience who is my
> judge - it's all of you who have the final word.
>
> And you all don't unanimously agree with each other. So of course that the
> interpretations I use won't agree with each other either.
>
> So I just shrug and use the ones that are more convenient for me in hopes
> that the audience would agree to it (whether I personally agree to it or
> not matters little, just my judgement of whether others might be convinced
> of it or not. Which in this case was woefully inaccurate, most likely due
> to that I just winged it).
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
>> They also seem to contradict each other at times.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans > > wrote:
>>
>>> The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is
>>> fallacious. Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it.
>>>
>>> I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the
>>> rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are
>>> nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop
>>> responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt.
>>>
>>> I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as
>>> good faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they
>>> all favor your goals.
>>>
>>> Cut the bullshit out.
>>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam" >> > wrote:
>>>
 ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for
 trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I
 *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a
 loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded
 *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office
 somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding,
 but I just want to understand that part better)

 All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no
 faking part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe
 it had at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I
 wouldn't have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when
 just writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it
 feels heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then
 again, if it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote
 FOR lol. But yeah, pretty evil.)

 On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) <
 grokag...@gmail.com
 > wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant
>  >
> wrote:
> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue
> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have
> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent.
> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game
> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans  > wrote:
> >> I would support, with a fair implementation.
> >>
> >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good
> Forever.
> >>
> >> I previously 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Cuddle Beam]

Yes, they are definitely contradictory at times. I've mentioned before that
I don't have any objective measure to decide what interpretation is best,
so I just use one which does the most interesting thing for me in hopes
that a enough audience agrees with it or a CFJ about it is judged in my
favor, because I don't know which among the myriad of perfectly reasonable
interpretations I will be judged by.

If you, nichdel and PSS, had opposite (and contradictory) interpretations
on something, I would believe that both are equally valid. Now, I have many
interpretations just like those in mind at any given time (and many
contradictory), and I have no tiebreaker. And even then, my own opinion
about what interpretation is best matters very little when it comes to
resolving my own actions, because in the end, its the audience who is my
judge - it's all of you who have the final word.

And you all don't unanimously agree with each other. So of course that the
interpretations I use won't agree with each other either.

So I just shrug and use the ones that are more convenient for me in hopes
that the audience would agree to it (whether I personally agree to it or
not matters little, just my judgement of whether others might be convinced
of it or not. Which in this case was woefully inaccurate, most likely due
to that I just winged it).

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> They also seem to contradict each other at times.
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans  wrote:
>
>> The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is
>> fallacious. Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it.
>>
>> I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the
>> rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are
>> nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop
>> responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt.
>>
>> I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as
>> good faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they
>> all favor your goals.
>>
>> Cut the bullshit out.
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
>>
>>> ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for
>>> trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I
>>> *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a
>>> loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded
>>> *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office
>>> somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding,
>>> but I just want to understand that part better)
>>>
>>> All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no
>>> faking part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe
>>> it had at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I
>>> wouldn't have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when
>>> just writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it
>>> feels heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then
>>> again, if it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote
>>> FOR lol. But yeah, pretty evil.)
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) >> > wrote:
>>>
 On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant
  wrote:
 > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue
 > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have
 > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent.
 > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game
 > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card.
 >
 > -Aris
 >
 > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
 >> I would support, with a fair implementation.
 >>
 >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good
 Forever.
 >>
 >> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to
 CB
 >> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to
 >> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB
 does
 >> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player.
 >>
 >> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a
 single
 >> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or
 >> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to
 anyone
 >> but emself.


 With these two finger points in play now, I'd like to make a quick
 reminder that I recommended Cuddlebeam be carded if eir attempt to
 deputize as Surveyor 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

They also seem to contradict each other at times.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans  wrote:

> The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is fallacious.
> Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it.
>
> I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the
> rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are
> nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop
> responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt.
>
> I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as
> good faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they
> all favor your goals.
>
> Cut the bullshit out.
>
> On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
>
>> ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for
>> trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I
>> *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a
>> loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded
>> *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office
>> somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding,
>> but I just want to understand that part better)
>>
>> All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no
>> faking part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe
>> it had at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I
>> wouldn't have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when
>> just writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it
>> feels heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then
>> again, if it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote
>> FOR lol. But yeah, pretty evil.)
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant
>>>  wrote:
>>> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue
>>> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have
>>> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent.
>>> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game
>>> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card.
>>> >
>>> > -Aris
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>>> >> I would support, with a fair implementation.
>>> >>
>>> >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever.
>>> >>
>>> >> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to
>>> CB
>>> >> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to
>>> >> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB
>>> does
>>> >> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player.
>>> >>
>>> >> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a
>>> single
>>> >> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or
>>> >> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to
>>> anyone
>>> >> but emself.
>>>
>>>
>>> With these two finger points in play now, I'd like to make a quick
>>> reminder that I recommended Cuddlebeam be carded if eir attempt to
>>> deputize as Surveyor fails[1].
>>>
>>> [1]:
>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28819.html
>>>
>>>
>>> -grok
>>>
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Nicholas Evans]

The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is fallacious.
Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it.

I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the
rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are
nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop
responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt.

I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as good
faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they all
favor your goals.

Cut the bullshit out.

On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for
> trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I
> *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a
> loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded
> *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office
> somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding,
> but I just want to understand that part better)
>
> All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no faking
> part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe it had
> at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I wouldn't
> have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when just
> writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it feels
> heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then again, if
> it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote FOR lol.
> But yeah, pretty evil.)
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue
>> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have
>> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent.
>> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game
>> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card.
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>> >> I would support, with a fair implementation.
>> >>
>> >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever.
>> >>
>> >> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to CB
>> >> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to
>> >> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB does
>> >> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player.
>> >>
>> >> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a single
>> >> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or
>> >> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to
>> anyone
>> >> but emself.
>>
>>
>> With these two finger points in play now, I'd like to make a quick
>> reminder that I recommended Cuddlebeam be carded if eir attempt to
>> deputize as Surveyor fails[1].
>>
>> [1]: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/m
>> sg28819.html
>>
>>
>> -grok
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 10:42 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> ..I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for
> trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I
> *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a
> loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded
> *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office
> somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding,
> but I just want to understand that part better)
> 
> All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no faking
> part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe it had
> at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I wouldn't
> have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when just
> writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it feels
> heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then again, if
> it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote FOR lol.
> But yeah, pretty evil.)

I have some potential advice here. If I'm going to try a scam and I'm
not certain it works, I often try to find a coconspirator with good
knowledge of the rules to talk the scam through with before attempting
it. This is particularly important because if you try a scam that
*almost* works, it can end up being stolen by someone else or fixed
before it actually goes through, so you want to find the best possible
version of the scam before attempting it.

It's also useful to have a good knowledge of Agoran history so that you
know what scams have already been attempted repeatedly and keep
failing. (Sometimes, such scams *do* end up working eventually, but
it's very rare, and you need to have a good understanding of why they
failed on previous occasions to know what would be different this
time.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 08:07 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> Trying to use a loophole that pretty patently does not exist or relies
> on misinterpretation of common definitions of words pretty clearly
> falls in foul of "No Faking" to me.
> 
> But even if it doesn't, if the CFJ is ruled against you, then you
> clearly were Faking when you submitted a Surveyor report and should be
> carded for that instance.
> 
> Regardless, I don't buy "I thought it might work" as a defense when
> the action is intended to avert the rules as intended. If it was a
> legitimate accident, sure. But in the case of a deliberate attempt to
> use the rules in a way that is not intended that fails due to an
> action that is impossible, the player should be punished for
> attempting an action that is clearly impossible.

We used to have rather stronger rules against lying in the public forum
(they come back every now and then, I think mostly for "gotcha"-based
gameplay rather than an actual attempt to ensure honesty). People tried
to work around them with elaborate disclaimers, but they tended to make
actions ineffective (you do something by announcement by saying that
you do it, so if you say that you do something but you also say that
anything in the message is potentially false, that's not really saying
that you're doing it).

I think my favourite was the rules against /misleading/ people in the
public forum (rather than against /lying/ to them). That could be
worked around via making your action so blatantly incorrect that nobody
could be mislead into thinking that it worked. (It also gave me one of
my favourite disclaimers, which didn't tend to block the rest of the
action: "Note: although I believe that this works, this sort of scam
has historically tended to fail, so please take care before concluding
that this action has had an effect".)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for trying
> the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I *fail* to
> deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a loophole to
> try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded *regardless* of if I
> fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office somehow spare me of
> getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding, but I just want to
> understand that part better)

Trying to use a loophole that pretty patently does not exist or relies
on misinterpretation of common definitions of words pretty clearly
falls in foul of "No Faking" to me.

But even if it doesn't, if the CFJ is ruled against you, then you
clearly were Faking when you submitted a Surveyor report and should be
carded for that instance.

Regardless, I don't buy "I thought it might work" as a defense when
the action is intended to avert the rules as intended. If it was a
legitimate accident, sure. But in the case of a deliberate attempt to
use the rules in a way that is not intended that fails due to an
action that is impossible, the player should be punished for
attempting an action that is clearly impossible.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Cuddle Beam]

...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for
trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I
*fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a
loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded
*regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office
somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding,
but I just want to understand that part better)

All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no faking
part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe it had
at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I wouldn't
have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when just
writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it feels
heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then again, if
it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote FOR lol.
But yeah, pretty evil.)

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue
> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have
> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent.
> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game
> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> >> I would support, with a fair implementation.
> >>
> >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever.
> >>
> >> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to CB
> >> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to
> >> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB does
> >> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player.
> >>
> >> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a single
> >> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or
> >> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to anyone
> >> but emself.
>
>
> With these two finger points in play now, I'd like to make a quick
> reminder that I recommended Cuddlebeam be carded if eir attempt to
> deputize as Surveyor fails[1].
>
> [1]: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/
> msg28819.html
>
>
> -grok
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue
> that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have
> believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent.
> Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game
> (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>> I would support, with a fair implementation.
>>
>> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever.
>>
>> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to CB
>> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to
>> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB does
>> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player.
>>
>> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a single
>> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or
>> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to anyone
>> but emself.


With these two finger points in play now, I'd like to make a quick
reminder that I recommended Cuddlebeam be carded if eir attempt to
deputize as Surveyor fails[1].

[1]: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28819.html


-grok

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> I intend to deregister myself without 2 objections - not one of these scams
> has even come close to working, and I'm finding it unfun.

I certainly hope you don't deregister. You're one of the players that
gave me hope enough to come back after this exact thing happened a
month and a half ago

But for what it's worth, you're not alone in this sentiment. If you do
deregister in a write of FAGE citing Cuddlebeam, there's a good chance
I do the same.


-grok

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 5:53 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> Via "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner
> to another entity by announcement", I announce that I transfer all assets to
> myself.
>
> How?
>
> Because "by announcement", which is the method; "An asset generally CAN be
> transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner to another entity"
>
> So by announcement, I can make it so there is a transfer (performed by the
> owner, apparently, but demanded to be so by me) to another entity, which is
> me.

That doesn't even make a little bit of sense, and it would need to do
more than that to get people to believe it. Would people object if I
tried to bring back black cards, except this time they would be the
equivalent of an old fashioned sentence of EXILE? I've about had it
with all this. I'm trying to be friendly, and welcoming, and all that,
but you've gotten so many people to deregister, and created so many
convoluted and unnecessary messes...

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I think this clearly didn’t work.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jul 9, 2017, at 8:53 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> Via "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner 
> to another entity by announcement", I announce that I transfer all assets to 
> myself.
> 
> How?
> 
> Because "by announcement", which is the method; "An asset generally CAN be 
> transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner to another entity"
> 
> So by announcement, I can make it so there is a transfer (performed by the 
> owner, apparently, but demanded to be so by me) to another entity, which is 
> me.
> 
> I create the following Proposal:
> 
> //
> Title: humble agoran farmer pokes you with a water gun and makes evil demands
> Author: Cuddlebeam
> Cuddlebeam wins the game (via Proposal).
> 
> Cuddlebeam gains a Black Ribbon.
> 
> Cuddlebeam gains the Patent title of "evil water gun wielder person thing".
> 
> Set Pending List Price to 5.
> 
> Set Agora's Balance amount to be equal to the Supply Level amount.
> //
> 
> I pend it with all of my shines.
> 
> I announce that I transfer all assets to myself.
> 
> I create the following Proposal:
> 
> //
> Title: Proposal Proposal
> Author: Cuddlebeam
> 
> This proposal is a proposal.
> 
> //
> 
> I pend it with all of my shines.
> 
> I announce that I transfer all assets to myself.
> 
> I announce that I destroy all of my assets. The method is the following:
> 
> We have:
> 
> "An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, subject to 
> modification by its backing document."
> 
> I'm employing that, however:
> 
> "An indestructible asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and 
> CANNOT be destroyed except by a rule specifically addressing the destruction 
> of indestructible assets."
> 
> That text itself addresses the destruction of indestructible assets (because 
> it says that they "CANNOT be destroyed except by a rule specifically 
> addressing the destruction of indestructible assets", which is in itself 
> addressing the destruction of indestructible assets.)
> 
> Ergo, Rule 2166 addresses the destruction of indestructible assets and 
> therefore can be used to destroy indestructible assets, so I can use "An 
> asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, subject to 
> modification by its backing document." to destroy my indestructible assets.
> 
> In case the above works, I'm guessing the easiest fix would be a Shiny 
> Relevelling event, but if that happens, I'll (attempt to) keep on triggering 
> "The above notwithstanding, if the action depends on objections, and an 
> objection to it has been withdrawn within the past 24 hours, then Agora is 
> not Satisfied with the intent." by just withdrawing the same Objection every 
> 12 hours or so.
> 
> There's likely some counter to this, IN the case that it actually works at 
> all lol. I've got too many things I want to try out so I'm just winging this.
> 
> In the case that it actually is stalwart, then, yeah. Vote for it or we won't 
> have proposals for a while, because there is no cash to actually pend 
> anything with (in fact, not voting for it could be criminal, for the same 
> reason that the stick-up itself would be, which is enabling boring gameplay. 
> Although I find stick-ups themselves to be pretty exciting lol).



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail