Sorry, yes, I think I misinterpreted something you did with the Organization as
being a pledge.
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017, Josh T wrote:
> Re: Japanese pledge: Given that I don't recall having made a pledge in
> Japanese, I haven't the foggiest what it might refer
> to.
> Re: Japanese Organization:
Re: Japanese pledge: Given that I don't recall having made a pledge in
Japanese, I haven't the foggiest what it might refer to.
Re: Japanese Organization: Yeah, no, that's what I expected of it. I have a
long philosophical experiment, I swear.
天火狐
On 20 July 2017 at 23:58, Owen Jacobson wrote:
On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> o, you seem to have accepted that a pledge in Japanese, of very limited
> comprehension to me, and with limited enforceability due to translation issues
> (even with the translator) is still some kind of publicly-made pledge. Why
> does
> this
You also created an organization with a Japanese charter, which is
acceptable because nothing says that chaarters have to be
understandable. But it also hasn't been allowed to do anything
meaningful. By the same token you could make a proposal in any language,
pend it andd vote on it, but whether i
I'd just like to mention I haven't actually succeeded in making a
non-registration action in Japanese, and I think all my attempts at voting
in such were thrown out, which I believe is the correct way to interpret
the rules. (While there are technical and cryptographic differences, using
another la
>First, you've *nearly* found ONE INTERNAL SCAM
humble agoran bloodhoun...-puppy at your service.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I disagree with that Public is explicitly defined. "Public message",
> yes. "Public X" in gener
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I disagree with that Public is explicitly defined. "Public message", yes.
> "Public X" in general?
> I don't believe so. "Public challenge" isn't explicitly defined to need to be
> a public message,
> just a challenge which is "Public" (which, via you
Woo, I was on the right track then. It's just that assembling these
findings into scams where I'm still in milk teeth with when it comes to
Agora.
Tbh I perhaps should dedicate time to studying the whole ruleset but
getting told where I'm wrong is less punishing than needing to elbow down
and memo
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> ...I also missed all of those other uses of "Public", sorry. Ctrl+F isn't
> useful to browse the ruleset when it's so large and there are so many
> references to a single term.
grepping through the ruleset is easy if you've read the ruleset.
Oh, and here's a couple where unclarity works as intended!
> Magenta (M): During Agora's Birthday, each person who has publicly
> acknowledged the
> fact qualifies for a Magenta Ribbon.
If this said "persons CAN acknowledge Agora's Birthday by announcement", this
would
mean everyone would hav
...I also missed all of those other uses of "Public", sorry. Ctrl+F isn't
useful to browse the ruleset when it's so large and there are so many
references to a single term.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >But so far a good 90% of your scams just trace back to poor or limit
>But so far a good 90% of your scams just trace back to poor or limited
reading of the rules.
>From your point of view, likely so. Imo its hardly as much, but still an
uncomfortable amount. I think its taken as much because I sometimes have
different opinions on what the rules mean. (for example, t
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> If that shielding doesn't get in the way, I'm guessing the trick would apply
>> to
>> "publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an
>> announcement
>> of intent to perform
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> If that shielding doesn't get in the way, I'm guessing the trick would apply
> to
> "publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an
> announcement
> of intent to perform the action" too? Basically anything "public" but that
> isn'
Sadly, I must concur with G. in his assessment of your scams. I appreciate his
willingness to engage with evidence in response to your scams as I considered
referencing the definition, but thought better of it.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 2
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I feel like a lot of the shielding is going to be invisible meta-rules
> ("public means
> that it needs to be sent to the public fora", "the pledge needs to be public
> itself and
> understandable", etc). Is there an Agoran slang term for invisible
>
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >that say that an action done by announcement has to be intelligible to
> anyoneAll of the japanese isn't intelligible to me, yet it doesn't seem
> to have broken that, regardless of what you believe
Every actual by-announcement Agoran action that has
>that say that an action done by announcement has to be intelligible to
anyone
All of the japanese isn't intelligible to me, yet it doesn't seem to have
broken that, regardless of what you believe (I understand your Cantus but I
doubt people should change their (already debated) convictions because
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Then from there, start to vie for that I only need to send the information to
> whoever is affected and the officer in question (for example, if I give bob 2
> shinies, I'd only need to give hash translation to bob an the shiny-officer
> and then enjoy
yay, merit for me! ty.
(I wonder if its possible to connect this to the other discovery that
unregulated actions actually can't touch the gamestate lol.)
Anyway, the hashed argument was just "lol I like boobs". Intentionally made
to be inane so that it could be easily detected if it was in the Ju
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 21:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > If I had, most such documents would be nonsense and IRRELEVANT. If
> > I broke the Original, that would be enough to "convict" me, so any others
> > wouldn't matter. If I obeyed the Original, ther
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I'm piggybacking on Kerim's arguments/reasoning because I'd like to know if
> encryption
> (and eventually public asymmetric information in general, really) can be
> applied to
> Gratuitous Arguments (only the Judge needs them, yes? Just like the
> tr
Also, before I forget, this is "Message A", in SHA256:
522EF772154A383CA26D3DC4EAA2ADBEF1ADFA187D0F7AA32D44F01F468AFF05
1EB9270A02E632866CBB1C3D4F5386A3BBE6EE2BF449C6B47B157134F891352F
AB5DF625BC76DBD4E163BED2DD888DF828F90159BB93556525C31821B6541D46
57CD837632D54FAC4362750ACA05EC813BF493527AEE9337
Sent.
...Now I brace myself.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I would appreciate receiving the originals of both of these documents, if
> you do not mind.
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius
I would appreciate receiving the originals of both of these documents, if you
do not mind.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:01 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I'm piggybacking on Kerim's arguments/reasoning because I'd like to know if
Keeping the spirit of what Kerim intended, what if they used some bijective
function instead?
Perhaps use multiple ways of writing the same promise in regular language,
hash all of those in different ways, and then claim to promise what all of
those hashes have in common (there must be a better wa
On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 21:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If I had, most such documents would be nonsense and IRRELEVANT. If
> I broke the Original, that would be enough to "convict" me, so any others
> wouldn't matter. If I obeyed the Original, there would still be some very
> low but nonzero chan
"or where an appeals court would make a finding of law _before_ a sentence
has been handed down by a trial court."
Federal courts sometimes ask State courts what the hell is going on in
state law before making their decision.
However, yeah.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
* in front of that 'Judge'
I'm writing horribly today lol, sorry. I used 'case' a bunch of times in
that last sentence too, jesus.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Maybe it's like that the CFJ is the CSI and the Referee is the traditional
> Judge that then takes the CSI's i
Maybe it's like that the CFJ is the CSI and the Referee is the traditional
Judge that then takes the CSI's information to give verdict.
CFJs also give word on interpretation though, and gratuitous
argument/counterarguments is very similar to lawyers in court in from of
that 'Judge'.
It's also pos
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 12:06 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> My disagreement with o here is that I don't believe that G. has pledged
>> to perform any /specific/ action; e's simply pledged to perform /some/
>> action that meets the given description. If
In my view, it is always accepted if it is a greater player (remember, not
decoration) and/or is not actively spam.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 16:20 Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know they're
> someone skilled in doing it. -> *Anyone else skillful enoug
Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know they're someone
skilled in doing it. -> *Anyone else skillful enough could create that
value, even if we don't know they're someone with that skill.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Yes, that's also what I dislik
Yes, that's also what I dislike lol."Content of the game action" thing. If
someone entirely anonymous posted Kerim's action and I consider it
interesting (even better if others consider it interesting), I'd contribute
with my fraction to "game custom" with that I consider that it should be
"accepta
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> For me, if Kerim (or anyone else) can contribute with CFJs which are
> fruitful,
> then game custom should accept it regardless of prior titles/merits (those
> being
> relevant, but just for an individual personal pre-scanning process). The
> content
That isn't what I meant by "greater players". I meant greater players in a
sense of including watchers and others who engage or have engaged.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 15:45 Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I agree with that it's great to have Kerim add CFJs but I massively
> dislike that "greater players" arg
I agree with that it's great to have Kerim add CFJs but I massively dislike
that "greater players" argument for it.
If anyone else much decorated than Kerim posted Kerim's CFJs in the same
way, would that be wrong?
For me, if Kerim (or anyone else) can contribute with CFJs which are
fruitful, the
I present the following as a gratuitous argument to that CFJ, which is 16
characters in length and with the following SHA-1 hash:
- 585b7880ef0394acb586274ba623ecd0232fbdc2
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 charact
I would argue that non-players who are greater players are given that right
by game custom.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 15:28 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and
> then
> > a no
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and then
> a non-player with the help of the arbitor could have no limit on CFJs as
> the SHALL NOT does not apply to them.
I shall try to contain the heady rush of po
Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and then a
non-player with the help of the arbitor could have no limit on CFJs as the
SHALL NOT does not apply to them.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 18, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Pub
I favor this CFJ.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 18, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in
> length with the following SHA-1 hash:
> 0
42 matches
Mail list logo