On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Pavitra <celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> I recuse Pavitra from CFJs 2704 and 2706 and make em supine. > > Sorry about that, everyone. > > I might as well post my incomplete attempt at working through 2706:
Heh, here's mine: There is definitely something of a conflict of interest here. On one hand, a judgement of TRUE means that I am mousetrapped, and "Punished", meaning that ais523 can act on my behalf by announcement; on the other, ais523 often works with me for the purpose of scams, and, voluntarily or not, I might be influenced in seeing things from his perspective, or the perspective of a scamster in general. I hope to avoid both conflicts. My general opinion on judging scams is that-- as allowed and required by Rule 217-- there must be some reactionism in the name of the good of the game. However, it must be limited: it is not in the good of the game that, having thought of a clever scam, a player is thwarted because the judge twists the language of the rules unreasonably just so the scam will fail. ais523 explicitly accused Agora in general of this, commenting that people would "turn around their arguments and start claiming it isn't a dependent action after all" when attempting to pull off a scam that the currently favored interpretation would allegedly enable. But scamsters, remember: while the judge has the tendency to rule unreasonably against a scam, the scamsters have the tendency to interpret the rules unreasonably in favor of the scam-- usually completely unconsciously, the belief in the scam genuine. I have believed scams to have a high chance of success which were laughed at by the players-- for a recent example, look at the Ice Climbers scam-- and, as a player, laughed at the serious scams of others. Let all beware tunnel vision. Wording scams-- exploiting real or imagined bugs in rules based on an imprecision in the language-- are probably the easiest sort of scam to pull off, if only because they're much more common than genuine unambiguous loopholes. However, I believe Agora doesn't provide a good playing field for them. [...] The facts: - The Points Party contract allowed itself to be amended "with four days notice". - ais523 posted (buried in a maze of other intents) the equivalent of the following: "I intend, without objection, to amend Points Party by replacing its entire text with [mousetrap]." - Several objections ensued, as predicted by all concerned. - Four days later, e purported to do so with four days notice. I believe the following questions need to be answered: 1. Does "with four days notice" count as With Notice? (even though the contract was formed before the adoption of With Notice) 2. If so, does it define one method or two? (i.e. does the text authorize a separate action in addition to matching the R1728 template?) 3. Does "I intend, without objection", count as ordinary-language notice for taking the action, using a mechanism other than without objection?
