> On Jul 20, 2017, at 10:37 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:11 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> Attempting, as Cuddlebeam explicitly did, to issue Trust Tokens on >> behalf of others, without even the faintest attempt to find >> justification in the rules, is plainly and obviously an intentional >> misinterpretation of the rules. E knew the action e purported to take >> would be impossible, before e sent any messages purporting to >> undertake that action, and sent the anyways. > > Potential counterargument: it's clear from this thread's subject that > CuddleBeam hasn't given the rules more than the most cursory reading, > as (without a rule change) there can only be one Trust Token win ever > (rule 2452, the same one e cited!), so hoping that other people would > give em a win "too" would be very implausible if e had actually read > the rules.
I think at the point where you’re citing specific rules, it’s reasonable to assume you’ve read those specific rules, especially as the underlying dishonesty hinged on yet another wilfully obtuse reading of the rule. That’s not something you can do by casually skimming. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
