I have to agree tbh, and I regret a degree what I've done, given that I'm aware that there was a better way to do it. I should've sent that message as a hypothetical case to a-d an claim the would-be merit through there rather than a-b.
But oh well, next time. On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote: > While I haven't been paying attention to your scams of late due to real > life drama and bad timing (family issues; I'm flying to go be with them for > a month starting Thursday), I feel that your welcome with such tactics has > worn thin. > > 天火狐 > > On 10 July 2017 at 12:17, 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> wrote: >> >>> They also seem to contradict each other at times. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans <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> 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> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant >>>>>> <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> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >
