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 <cuddleb...@gmail.com> 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 > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <nich...@gmail.com >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nich...@gmail.com');>> 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" <cuddleb...@gmail.com >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cuddleb...@gmail.com');>> 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 >>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','grokag...@gmail.com');>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant >>>>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com >>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thoughtsoflifeandligh...@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. >>>>> > >>>>> > -Aris >>>>> > >>>>> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com >>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nich...@gmail.com');>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >
