G. responded to my original finger-pointing message with some
convincing reasons it might not work. I'm not inclined to re-try, but
others are welcome to of course.
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 04:54, Rebecca wrote:
>
> Someone just point another finger, and assign it to the arbitor.
>
> On Monday,
Sorry, I misread the comments and thought the first attempt was inextricable
rather than failed (i.e. the conditional "If [past inextricable] then X" is
itself inextricable).
On 7/28/2019 10:22 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Really?
If the first attempt worked, then the second attempt didn't, so the
Really?
If the first attempt worked, then the second attempt didn't, so the
action was performed exactly once.
If the first attempt failed, then the second attempt worked, so the
action was performed exactly once.
There were no changes to the gamestate between the two attempts, and I
Heh - the "if I have not done so already" is conditional on whether your
previous conditional worked so you haven't solved your problem...
On 7/28/2019 9:59 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Oh, I didn't know that.
If I have not done so already, I temporarily deputise for Referee to perform
the
IANAL.
Not that this is really relevant, but if there's been severe misconduct
in the first trial, then jeopardy never attaches (because the defendant
was never "in jeopardy"), and the accused can be retried.
Jason Cobb
On 7/29/19 12:55 AM, Rebecca wrote:
(just as it is in the real life
Precedent (or at least game custom) says that you can’t condition an action
on whether something is LEGAL. The reason is that SHALLs are often used for
things that are hard to calculate (e.g. faking), and so such conditions
make the gamestate ambiguous.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 9:08 PM
This is actually proof of why double jeopardy attaching on an acquittal is
a bad plan in the agoran context (just as it is in the real life
consequence in cases of, say, bribing the jurors)
On Monday, July 29, 2019, Rebecca wrote:
> Someone just point another finger, and assign it to the
Someone just point another finger, and assign it to the arbitor.
On Monday, July 29, 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
> I note that the office of Referee is vacant because its former holder (R.
> Lee) has ceased to be a player.
>
> If I CAN do so, and if it is LEGAL for me to do so, I temporarily
No Faking charges have been done in the past on things like R. Lee's with
the result "that was clearly sarcastic and not meant to fool anyone".
On 7/24/2019 4:34 PM, James Cook wrote:
Trigon - no, because maybe the contract says e can withdraw its 10 Coins.
R. Lee - no, because maybe e knows
Trigon - no, because maybe the contract says e can withdraw its 10 Coins.
R. Lee - no, because maybe e knows that the contract actually doesn't
allow em to withdraw Coins anyway. (Slightly less plausible, since eir
message gave me the impression e didn't actually know what's in the
contract.)
I
Shouldn't these arguments apply just as well to R. Lee and Trigon?
Jason Cobb
On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote:
Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
actions related to NSC:
2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins G. -> NSC
2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins NSC -> Trigon
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 14:23, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Remembering that the standard is preponderance of the evidence ("more likely
> than not"), reasonable possibilities that aren't No Faking:
>
> - if e was in the know, one or more transfer messages were genuine but
> simple mistakes. E.g. if e
> Yes, "agreement" includes both consent and agreement specified by contract.
I'm confused by the wording. Does that mean both consent and
contract-specified agreement are (possibly different) ways to agree,
or that one doesn't agree unless both conditions (consent and
contract-specified
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 22:52, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 22, 2019 10:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > On 7/22/19 6:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> > > > I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract
You wake up in Aruba with an overturned golf cart and 14 goats in your
hotel room.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:13 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> I become a signatory to NSC and perform any actions it enables me to
> perform 15 times
>
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > TURNPIKE: I
Public forum
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019, Rebecca wrote:
> I become a signatory to NSC and perform any actions it enables me to
> perform 15 times
>
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > TURNPIKE: I transfer 2 coins from NSC to myself.
> >
> > BLACKMAIL: I transfer 6 coins from
On Monday, July 22, 2019 10:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 7/22/19 6:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> > > I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract with at least 2
> > > parties, known as NSC.
> > > Can you point out
On 7/22/19 6:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
No, the person has to be a party to the contract first for the
contract to specify how they can agree. Otherwise that clause is badly
broken (which might be the case...)
-Aris
I brought this up a month and a half ago [0], and G. responded with
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:41 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 7/22/19 6:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract with at least 2
> >> parties, known as NSC.
> > Can you point out in which
On 7/22/19 6:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract with at least 2
parties, known as NSC.
Can you point out in which message(s) - which, per Rule 2519, must be public -
the parties consented to
On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract with at least 2
> parties, known as NSC.
Can you point out in which message(s) - which, per Rule 2519, must be public -
the parties consented to the agreement, thereby causing it to become
On 7/22/19 4:50 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:42 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
On 7/22/19 4:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Ahh. You're demonstrating that vulnerability involving private
contracts, that make sense.
But I thought contracts required two parties...?
They do, but
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:42 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 7/22/19 4:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Ahh. You're demonstrating that vulnerability involving private
> > contracts, that make sense.
>
> But I thought contracts required two parties...?
>
They do, but nothing requires that the details
On 7/22/19 4:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Ahh. You're demonstrating that vulnerability involving private
contracts, that make sense.
But I thought contracts required two parties...?
--
Jason Cobb
Ahh. You're demonstrating that vulnerability involving private
contracts, that make sense.
-Aris
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:39 PM Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> I transfer 10 coins from NSC.
>
> On 7/22/19 2:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > to NSC.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Aris Merchant
>
to NSC.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> To whom, exactly?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:22 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > I transfer 10 coins to NSC.
> >
> > -G.
26 matches
Mail list logo
