As I understand it, either both the creations and the scam worked, or neither did. Either way we have a problem.
-Aris On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work? > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:04 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The creation of stamps is done by this text: "Once per month, a player >> MAY, by announcement, transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies, >> to create a Stamp.". MAY means something is legal and not punishable, >> but it doesn't imply CAN, which creates a mechanism to do it. >> Therefore, all previous such transfers were legal, but did not >> actually happen. We plan to fix the problem by waving our hands and >> pretending that all previous transfers did happen, although that will >> not apply to future transfers until o's most recent proposal passes, >> fixing the rule. >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Kyle Anderson <kyescott5...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened >> > with stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they >> > no >> > longer exist. I thought that the scam did not succeed, though I'm not >> > entirely sure why. Did the scam work? >> > >> > Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around this. There's a lot to follow >> > tonight. >> > >> > K >> > >> > On Sep 7, 2017 9:32 PM, "Aris Merchant" >> > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > FTR, for obvious reasons ratification is secured at power 3, so it >> > takes an AI 3 proposal to ratify something, >> > >> > -Aris >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: >> >> It is, as far as I can tell, always possible to unilaterally prevent >> >> ratification without objection, and to prevent self-ratification, if >> >> you >> >> have the will to do so. Ratification by proposal is harder to stop >> >> single-handedly, but you can always outline your objections in plain >> >> language and hope people vote against the proposal. >> >> >> >> -o >> >> >> >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant >> >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would >> >>> disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess. >> >>> >> >>> -Aris >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > Proto-actions: >> >>> > >> >>> > I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly >> >>> > Secretary’s >> >>> > report on grounds that their author has included information which >> >>> > is >> >>> > inaccurate. >> >>> > >> >>> > I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the >> >>> > objection >> >>> > above. >> >>> > >> >>> > ---- >> >>> > >> >>> > Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information >> >>> > like >> >>> > this >> >>> > (for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"? >> >>> > >> >>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is >> >>> >> wrong. >> >>> >> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure >> >>> >> it >> >>> >> out some way. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of >> >>> >> > dispute >> >>> >> > or >> >>> >> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really >> >>> >> > isnt >> >>> >> > one. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> >> >>> >> > wrote: >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists. >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam >> >>> >> >> <cuddleb...@gmail.com> >> >>> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right >> >>> >> >> > to >> >>> >> >> > me. >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson >> >>> >> >> > <o...@grimoire.ca> >> >>> >> >> > wrote: >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> >> >>> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into >> >>> >> >> >> > having >> >>> >> >> >> > them. >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly >> >>> >> >> >> Secretary’s >> >>> >> >> >> report will do that, thankfully. >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> -o >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> -- >> >>> >> >> From V.J Rada >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> -- >> >>> >> From V.J Rada >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J Rada > >
