On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a bit embarrassed about everything going on, so I'll deregister. > I don't believe there's such a thing as an unforgivable mistake, so I'd be pleased to see you come back sometime. The rest of this is my attempt to explain why these things are more frustrating to other players than you seem to believe. > > In my defense for the latest thing, I did take a situation which is > entirely innocuous to the rest of the game (trust tokens, who uses them? > And even then, you could still issue them yourself whenever. No urgency or > significant connection to everything else, unless you make it so.) and I > did put a warning that it was exotic territory: http://www.mail- > archive.com/agora-busin...@agoranomic.org/msg28889.html, and I repeated > it as I discussed it. > > 1) Wins are not innocuous, they're a big deal. They can trigger several major game changes (repeal of minor rules, changing the Speaker). 2) People are using trust tokens, just covertly (note one is issued when you endorse someone). I know this is a bit trickier to see as a new player, but it's happening. > So, I was aware that it deviant. That's why I made it separate and I put a > notice about it in the first place. But then it started to escalate and I > don't mind when its limited to the lounge of talking about what I've > brought up, but then it started to spill everywhere else somehow, and that > wasn't my intent. > > I tried for it to be separate from everyone else's concerns and whoever > was interested in it, could participate, with me deliberately choosing a > situation that I believed that pretty much anyone not into it could just > ignore. That's why I chose that compartmentalized situation it and added > frequent notices that yes, I'm going pretty off-shore with what I'm using > as premises. Or maybe trying to do stuff like that doesn't work at all at > the Agoran context. At least, for me personally, it does work. I ignore > pretty much everything except replies on my own things on a-b, for example. > And I haven't read any of the discussion about the economy or all of those > doohickeys, because whatever result about that will be cool with me. But > maybe its not the same for everyone else. > You *have to* realize that officers have to read nearly every email. Officers need to know the gamestate so they can tell other players, and all sorts of subtle actions can affect the gamestate. Everytime anything hits a-b, nearly every officer reads it to make sure it doesn't affect their part of the game. This game is administered by people, not machines, and so there's always a cognitive load for anything that happens. It's not possible to compartmentalize. > > If I'm guilty of using deviant interpretation, sure. That was what I was > using. I already know that it has an extremely low chance of being broadly > taken as correct, because it uses a set of "axioms" (which are arbitrary), > which don't have much in common with the majority. But while it has that > extremely low chance - if by some feat of skill, discovery and luck, I > actually *do* make it work, then whoa. That makes it worthwhile for me. > Proving the impossible. > This is another issue with the 'take it in a vacuum' thought. If you propose to accomplish something in an unlikely way and it's allowed, we've created precedent that that is the correct interpretation. The rules bend, and eventually break, when we're too permissive with them. So everybody has a vested interest in keeping our interpretations solid. > > But oh well. I think its better for the both of us if I dereg for now. I > do enjoy discussing things with several people here, perhaps once I learn > to how to better separate the shell from the oyster we can dine on good > discussion together here again. > Most people here just want to play games with people. We might be skeptical when you come back, but if you show you get what the issues were, we'll be happy to play with you again. > > (and I'll go and suck on my shells somewhere else lol). >
