Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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, 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 deputise
> > for Referee to perform the following actions:
> >
> > {
> >
> > I find Falsifian's Finger Pointing against Jason Cobb to be Shenanigans.
> >
> > }
> >
> > (this is legal by my reading because there's no restriction on me
> > resolving a Finger-point against myself.)
> >
> > I recognize that this is really scammy and probably against game custom,
> > but oh well.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >
> >> Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
> >>> actions related to NSC:
> >>>
> >>> 2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins G. -> NSC
> >>> 2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins NSC -> Trigon
> >>> 2019-07-22 21:42: 4 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb
> >>> 2019-07-22 21:42: 2 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE)
> >>> 2019-07-22 21:42: 6 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL)
> >>> 2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times
> >>>
> >>> - Falsifian
> >>>
> >> I Point my Finger at Jason Cobb for violating Rule 2471 (No Faking).
> >>
> >> Jason Cobb published messages claiming e transferred a total of 12
> >> Coins from NSC, when NSC had at most 10 Coins. I can think of three
> >> cases:
> >>
> >> * E did not know the text of NSC, in which case e surely believed eir
> >> actions would not be effective, and so violated R2471 with the first
> >> attempted action.
> >>
> >> * E did know the text, and therefore knew specifically which of the
> >> actions would fail.
> >>
> >> * E did know the text, but the text makes it hard for em to know which
> >> of the earlier actions would succeed, so e did not know which of the
> >> later actions would succeed. This seems unlikely, but I welcome Jason
> >> Cobb to try to convince us of this.
> >>
> >> I do think the statements were made with the intent to mislead: there
> >> wis intentionally uncertainty around what NSC is, and Jason Cobb must
> >> have known eir statements would add to the confusion.
> >>
> >> --
> >> - Falsifian
> >>
> >
>
> --
> From R. Lee
--
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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 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 don't
think it's in anybody's report exactly when I deputised for the office, so
isn't the gamestate unambiguous now?
Jason Cobb
On 7/29/19 1:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
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 following actions:
{
I find Falsifian's Finger Pointing against Jason Cobb to be Shenanigans.
}
(I really hope this doesn't get me another No Faking charge...)
Jason Cobb
On 7/29/19 12:57 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
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 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
deputise for Referee to perform the following actions:
{
I find Falsifian's Finger Pointing against Jason Cobb to be Shenanigans.
}
(this is legal by my reading because there's no restriction on me
resolving a Finger-point against myself.)
I recognize that this is really scammy and probably against game custom,
but oh well.
Jason Cobb
On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote:
Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
actions related to NSC:
2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins G. -> NSC
2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins NSC -> Trigon
2019-07-22 21:42: 4 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb
2019-07-22 21:42: 2 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE)
2019-07-22 21:42: 6 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL)
2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times
- Falsifian
I Point my Finger at Jason Cobb for violating Rule 2471 (No Faking).
Jason Cobb published messages claiming e transferred a total of 12
Coins from NSC, when NSC had at most 10 Coins. I can think of three
cases:
* E did not know the text of NSC, in which case e surely believed eir
actions would not be effective, and so violated R2471 with the first
attempted action.
* E did know the text, and therefore knew specifically which of the
actions would fail.
* E did know the text, but the text makes it hard for em to know which
of the earlier actions would succeed, so e did not know which of the
later actions would succeed. This seems unlikely, but I welcome Jason
Cobb to try to convince us of this.
I do think the statements were made with the intent to mislead: there
wis intentionally uncertainty around what NSC is, and Jason Cobb must
have known eir statements would add to the confusion.
--
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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
don't think it's in anybody's report exactly when I deputised for the
office, so isn't the gamestate unambiguous now?
Jason Cobb
On 7/29/19 1:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
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 following actions:
{
I find Falsifian's Finger Pointing against Jason Cobb to be Shenanigans.
}
(I really hope this doesn't get me another No Faking charge...)
Jason Cobb
On 7/29/19 12:57 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
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 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
deputise for Referee to perform the following actions:
{
I find Falsifian's Finger Pointing against Jason Cobb to be
Shenanigans.
}
(this is legal by my reading because there's no restriction on me
resolving a Finger-point against myself.)
I recognize that this is really scammy and probably against game
custom,
but oh well.
Jason Cobb
On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote:
Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
actions related to NSC:
2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins G. -> NSC
2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins NSC -> Trigon
2019-07-22 21:42: 4 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb
2019-07-22 21:42: 2 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment:
TURNPIKE)
2019-07-22 21:42: 6 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment:
BLACKMAIL)
2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times
- Falsifian
I Point my Finger at Jason Cobb for violating Rule 2471 (No Faking).
Jason Cobb published messages claiming e transferred a total of 12
Coins from NSC, when NSC had at most 10 Coins. I can think of three
cases:
* E did not know the text of NSC, in which case e surely believed eir
actions would not be effective, and so violated R2471 with the first
attempted action.
* E did know the text, and therefore knew specifically which of the
actions would fail.
* E did know the text, but the text makes it hard for em to know
which
of the earlier actions would succeed, so e did not know which of the
later actions would succeed. This seems unlikely, but I welcome Jason
Cobb to try to convince us of this.
I do think the statements were made with the intent to mislead: there
wis intentionally uncertainty around what NSC is, and Jason Cobb must
have known eir statements would add to the confusion.
--
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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 following actions:
{
I find Falsifian's Finger Pointing against Jason Cobb to be Shenanigans.
}
(I really hope this doesn't get me another No Faking charge...)
Jason Cobb
On 7/29/19 12:57 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
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 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
deputise for Referee to perform the following actions:
{
I find Falsifian's Finger Pointing against Jason Cobb to be Shenanigans.
}
(this is legal by my reading because there's no restriction on me
resolving a Finger-point against myself.)
I recognize that this is really scammy and probably against game custom,
but oh well.
Jason Cobb
On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote:
Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
actions related to NSC:
2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins G. -> NSC
2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins NSC -> Trigon
2019-07-22 21:42: 4 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb
2019-07-22 21:42: 2 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE)
2019-07-22 21:42: 6 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL)
2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times
- Falsifian
I Point my Finger at Jason Cobb for violating Rule 2471 (No Faking).
Jason Cobb published messages claiming e transferred a total of 12
Coins from NSC, when NSC had at most 10 Coins. I can think of three
cases:
* E did not know the text of NSC, in which case e surely believed eir
actions would not be effective, and so violated R2471 with the first
attempted action.
* E did know the text, and therefore knew specifically which of the
actions would fail.
* E did know the text, but the text makes it hard for em to know which
of the earlier actions would succeed, so e did not know which of the
later actions would succeed. This seems unlikely, but I welcome Jason
Cobb to try to convince us of this.
I do think the statements were made with the intent to mislead: there
wis intentionally uncertainty around what NSC is, and Jason Cobb must
have known eir statements would add to the confusion.
--
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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 consequence in cases of, say, bribing the jurors)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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 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
> deputise for Referee to perform the following actions:
>
> {
>
> I find Falsifian's Finger Pointing against Jason Cobb to be Shenanigans.
>
> }
>
> (this is legal by my reading because there's no restriction on me
> resolving a Finger-point against myself.)
>
> I recognize that this is really scammy and probably against game custom,
> but oh well.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >> Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
> >> actions related to NSC:
> >>
> >> 2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins G. -> NSC
> >> 2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins NSC -> Trigon
> >> 2019-07-22 21:42: 4 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb
> >> 2019-07-22 21:42: 2 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE)
> >> 2019-07-22 21:42: 6 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL)
> >> 2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times
> >>
> >> - Falsifian
> > I Point my Finger at Jason Cobb for violating Rule 2471 (No Faking).
> >
> > Jason Cobb published messages claiming e transferred a total of 12
> > Coins from NSC, when NSC had at most 10 Coins. I can think of three
> > cases:
> >
> > * E did not know the text of NSC, in which case e surely believed eir
> > actions would not be effective, and so violated R2471 with the first
> > attempted action.
> >
> > * E did know the text, and therefore knew specifically which of the
> > actions would fail.
> >
> > * E did know the text, but the text makes it hard for em to know which
> > of the earlier actions would succeed, so e did not know which of the
> > later actions would succeed. This seems unlikely, but I welcome Jason
> > Cobb to try to convince us of this.
> >
> > I do think the statements were made with the intent to mislead: there
> > wis intentionally uncertainty around what NSC is, and Jason Cobb must
> > have known eir statements would add to the confusion.
> >
> > --
> > - Falsifian
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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 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
>> deputise for Referee to perform the following actions:
>>
>> {
>>
>> I find Falsifian's Finger Pointing against Jason Cobb to be Shenanigans.
>>
>> }
>>
>> (this is legal by my reading because there's no restriction on me
>> resolving a Finger-point against myself.)
>>
>> I recognize that this is really scammy and probably against game custom,
>> but oh well.
>>
>> Jason Cobb
>>
>> On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote:
>>
>>> Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
actions related to NSC:
2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins G. -> NSC
2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins NSC -> Trigon
2019-07-22 21:42: 4 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb
2019-07-22 21:42: 2 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE)
2019-07-22 21:42: 6 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL)
2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times
- Falsifian
>>> I Point my Finger at Jason Cobb for violating Rule 2471 (No Faking).
>>>
>>> Jason Cobb published messages claiming e transferred a total of 12
>>> Coins from NSC, when NSC had at most 10 Coins. I can think of three
>>> cases:
>>>
>>> * E did not know the text of NSC, in which case e surely believed eir
>>> actions would not be effective, and so violated R2471 with the first
>>> attempted action.
>>>
>>> * E did know the text, and therefore knew specifically which of the
>>> actions would fail.
>>>
>>> * E did know the text, but the text makes it hard for em to know which
>>> of the earlier actions would succeed, so e did not know which of the
>>> later actions would succeed. This seems unlikely, but I welcome Jason
>>> Cobb to try to convince us of this.
>>>
>>> I do think the statements were made with the intent to mislead: there
>>> wis intentionally uncertainty around what NSC is, and Jason Cobb must
>>> have known eir statements would add to the confusion.
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Falsifian
>>>
>>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>
>
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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 deputise
> for Referee to perform the following actions:
>
> {
>
> I find Falsifian's Finger Pointing against Jason Cobb to be Shenanigans.
>
> }
>
> (this is legal by my reading because there's no restriction on me
> resolving a Finger-point against myself.)
>
> I recognize that this is really scammy and probably against game custom,
> but oh well.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote:
>
>> Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
>>> actions related to NSC:
>>>
>>> 2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins G. -> NSC
>>> 2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins NSC -> Trigon
>>> 2019-07-22 21:42: 4 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb
>>> 2019-07-22 21:42: 2 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE)
>>> 2019-07-22 21:42: 6 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL)
>>> 2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times
>>>
>>> - Falsifian
>>>
>> I Point my Finger at Jason Cobb for violating Rule 2471 (No Faking).
>>
>> Jason Cobb published messages claiming e transferred a total of 12
>> Coins from NSC, when NSC had at most 10 Coins. I can think of three
>> cases:
>>
>> * E did not know the text of NSC, in which case e surely believed eir
>> actions would not be effective, and so violated R2471 with the first
>> attempted action.
>>
>> * E did know the text, and therefore knew specifically which of the
>> actions would fail.
>>
>> * E did know the text, but the text makes it hard for em to know which
>> of the earlier actions would succeed, so e did not know which of the
>> later actions would succeed. This seems unlikely, but I welcome Jason
>> Cobb to try to convince us of this.
>>
>> I do think the statements were made with the intent to mislead: there
>> wis intentionally uncertainty around what NSC is, and Jason Cobb must
>> have known eir statements would add to the confusion.
>>
>> --
>> - Falsifian
>>
>
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
No Faking charges have been done in the past on things like R. Lee's with the result "that was clearly sarcastic and not meant to fool anyone". On 7/24/2019 4:34 PM, James Cook wrote: Trigon - no, because maybe the contract says e can withdraw its 10 Coins. R. Lee - no, because maybe e knows that the contract actually doesn't allow em to withdraw Coins anyway. (Slightly less plausible, since eir message gave me the impression e didn't actually know what's in the contract.) I picked on you because I thought I could make a case based on the fact that your own purported actions alone amounted to more than 10 Coins.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
Trigon - no, because maybe the contract says e can withdraw its 10 Coins. R. Lee - no, because maybe e knows that the contract actually doesn't allow em to withdraw Coins anyway. (Slightly less plausible, since eir message gave me the impression e didn't actually know what's in the contract.) I picked on you because I thought I could make a case based on the fact that your own purported actions alone amounted to more than 10 Coins. On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 17:43, Jason Cobb wrote: > > Shouldn't these arguments apply just as well to R. Lee and Trigon? > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote: > >> Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported > >> actions related to NSC: > >> > >> 2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins G. -> NSC > >> 2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins NSC -> Trigon > >> 2019-07-22 21:42: 4 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb > >> 2019-07-22 21:42: 2 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE) > >> 2019-07-22 21:42: 6 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL) > >> 2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times > >> > >> - Falsifian > > I Point my Finger at Jason Cobb for violating Rule 2471 (No Faking). > > > > Jason Cobb published messages claiming e transferred a total of 12 > > Coins from NSC, when NSC had at most 10 Coins. I can think of three > > cases: > > > > * E did not know the text of NSC, in which case e surely believed eir > > actions would not be effective, and so violated R2471 with the first > > attempted action. > > > > * E did know the text, and therefore knew specifically which of the > > actions would fail. > > > > * E did know the text, but the text makes it hard for em to know which > > of the earlier actions would succeed, so e did not know which of the > > later actions would succeed. This seems unlikely, but I welcome Jason > > Cobb to try to convince us of this. > > > > I do think the statements were made with the intent to mislead: there > > wis intentionally uncertainty around what NSC is, and Jason Cobb must > > have known eir statements would add to the confusion. > > > > -- > > - Falsifian -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
Shouldn't these arguments apply just as well to R. Lee and Trigon? Jason Cobb On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote: Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported actions related to NSC: 2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins G. -> NSC 2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins NSC -> Trigon 2019-07-22 21:42: 4 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb 2019-07-22 21:42: 2 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE) 2019-07-22 21:42: 6 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL) 2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times - Falsifian I Point my Finger at Jason Cobb for violating Rule 2471 (No Faking). Jason Cobb published messages claiming e transferred a total of 12 Coins from NSC, when NSC had at most 10 Coins. I can think of three cases: * E did not know the text of NSC, in which case e surely believed eir actions would not be effective, and so violated R2471 with the first attempted action. * E did know the text, and therefore knew specifically which of the actions would fail. * E did know the text, but the text makes it hard for em to know which of the earlier actions would succeed, so e did not know which of the later actions would succeed. This seems unlikely, but I welcome Jason Cobb to try to convince us of this. I do think the statements were made with the intent to mislead: there wis intentionally uncertainty around what NSC is, and Jason Cobb must have known eir statements would add to the confusion. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 14:23, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Remembering that the standard is preponderance of the evidence ("more likely
> than not"), reasonable possibilities that aren't No Faking:
>
> - if e was in the know, one or more transfer messages were genuine but
> simple mistakes. E.g. if e simply forgot something on the first one (with
> no comment), then the later two were fine. Those sorts of simple mistakes
> happen all the time when we take actions and I can't find any obligation for
> people to tell when they make mistakes.
>
> - if was in the know, e sent it, realized that the contract was broken
> somehow, modified the contract, and re-sent.
>
> - if e didn't know about the contract, e could have been just throwing
> attempts at the wall to see if stuff succeeded. There are plenty of
> examples of people doing random stuff like that.
Good points. This casts a lot of doubt on whether my Finger-pointing will work.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
> Yes, "agreement" includes both consent and agreement specified by contract. I'm confused by the wording. Does that mean both consent and contract-specified agreement are (possibly different) ways to agree, or that one doesn't agree unless both conditions (consent and contract-specified agreement) are satisfied? I guess it's the former, since I see contracts that e.g. allow someone to unilaterally exit the contract without explicit consent from the other parties, and we seem to assume that works. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 22:52, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 22, 2019 10:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > On 7/22/19 6:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> > > > I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract with at least 2
> > > > parties, known as NSC.
> > > > Can you point out in which message(s) - which, per Rule 2519, must be
> > > > public - the parties consented to the agreement, thereby causing it to
> > > > become a contract?
> > >
> > > -twg
> >
> > Ehh... not quite.
> >
> > Rule 1742 ("Contracts") reads:
> >
> > > For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both consent and
> > > agreement specified by contract.
> >
> > The contract could have specified other ways to agree to it, besides
> > public consent.
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
>
> Yes, "agreement" includes both consent and agreement specified by contract.
>
> "By agreement" is the method used to modify or terminate a contract. There is
> also (nowadays) a prohibition on players becoming parties without eir
> "agreement". But none of those things form part of the *definition* of a
> contract:
>
> Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
> make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
> binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
> is known as a contract.
>
> i.e., if the persons are not consenting, the agreement (whether or not it has
> been agreed to as specified by contract) is not a contract.
>
> -twg
As Treasuror, if there are no further comments, I'm going to assume
that this reasoning is correct and that the contract NSC never
existed.
Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
actions related to NSC:
2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins G. -> NSC
2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins NSC -> Trigon
2019-07-22 21:42: 4 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb
2019-07-22 21:42: 2 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE)
2019-07-22 21:42: 6 Coins NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL)
2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times
--
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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 transfer 2 coins from NSC to myself. > > > > BLACKMAIL: I transfer 6 coins from NSC to myself. > > > > -- > > Jason Cobb > > > > > > -- > From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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 NSC to myself. > > > > -- > > Jason Cobb > > > > > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
On Monday, July 22, 2019 10:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 7/22/19 6:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> > > I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract with at least 2
> > > parties, known as NSC.
> > > Can you point out in which message(s) - which, per Rule 2519, must be
> > > public - the parties consented to the agreement, thereby causing it to
> > > become a contract?
> >
> > -twg
>
> Ehh... not quite.
>
> Rule 1742 ("Contracts") reads:
>
> > For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both consent and
> > agreement specified by contract.
>
> The contract could have specified other ways to agree to it, besides
> public consent.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
Yes, "agreement" includes both consent and agreement specified by contract.
"By agreement" is the method used to modify or terminate a contract. There is
also (nowadays) a prohibition on players becoming parties without eir
"agreement". But none of those things form part of the *definition* of a
contract:
Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
is known as a contract.
i.e., if the persons are not consenting, the agreement (whether or not it has
been agreed to as specified by contract) is not a contract.
-twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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 precedent basically saying "for contract-specified agreement to work, a person must have taken an affirmative action with intent to trigger the agreement clause" [1]. [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-June/054131.html [1]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-June/054132.html -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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 message(s) - which, per Rule 2519, must be
> > public - the parties consented to the agreement, thereby causing it to
> > become a contract?
> >
> > -twg
>
> Ehh... not quite.
>
> Rule 1742 ("Contracts") reads:
>
> > For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both consent and
> > agreement specified by contract.
>
> The contract could have specified other ways to agree to it, besides
> public consent.
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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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 the agreement, thereby causing it to become a contract?
-twg
Ehh... not quite.
Rule 1742 ("Contracts") reads:
For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both consent and agreement
specified by contract.
The contract could have specified other ways to agree to it, besides
public consent.
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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 a contract? -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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 nothing requires that the details be published. They could have agreed on the term in secret. -Aris What I was getting at was whether or not we even know that Trigon is in fact a party. For all we know, e could just be trying to get free coins out of a contract e is not party to. Sorry, I could have been clearer. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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 be published. They could have agreed on the term in secret. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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 > > wrote: > >> > >> To whom, exactly? > >> > >> -Aris > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:22 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> > >>> I transfer 10 coins to NSC. > >>> > >>> -G. > > -- > Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business
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.
