When the puzzle is the intentions of strangers you only know through typed
words, it's often easy to solve the wrong puzzle.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:10 PM Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> (Just suspicion though, if this is actually what is happening, then thats
> still OK imo, I see we have cheeky plays at times and that's alright. If
> it's not happening, then I'll admit that I was wrong and simply put
> together the wrong puzzle pieces.)
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> AP is unambiguous throughout the "timelines", so just making/pending a
>> fix proposal with that would be the clearest way imo.
>>
>> Also I've seen that Owen has made a bunch of cheap proposals, which could
>> make for huge profits once the economy gets better (Proposals: Welcome
>> Package CAN Patch, Stamp CAN Patch, Agency Typo Fix, You can take it
>> with you)
>>
>> However, it won't work if this false info doesn't get ratified with the
>> low pending value he has used. It annoys me that it was he himself too who
>> pointed out that Stamps didn't actually exist and this whole mess, making
>> me believe that he was aware of it but hoped we didn't catch it so that he
>> could do this greed maneuver (assuming that I'm correct in this insight).
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If we trust that the proposal is going through, we can continue
>>> to play as if Floating value has been changed correctly, and assume
>>> the values will catch up officially when the proposal passes.
>>>
>>> If we ratify without fixing the rule (fixing the rule requires a
>>> proposal no matter what), what happens to further play that happens in
>>> between ratification and fixing the rule?
>>>
>>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> > The long-term effect is equivalent. The short term effect is different
>>> > though, in that ratification without objection takes 4 days, and
>>> > proposals take a week min but usually more like 2. Keep in mind that
>>> > ratification is really just a way to change the past, regardless if
>>> > whether you're changing it to agree with the players mental
>>> > conceptions or for some other reason. Any change to the past has to
>>> > use ratification or something equivalent anyway. The reason I'm in
>>> > such a hurry about this is that it affects so many areas of the
>>> > gamestate. The invalidation of the Floating Value is the most serious,
>>> > as it could change whether all kinds of actions are able to take
>>> > effect. That includes both CFJs and pending proposals, although
>>> > proposals don't actually have to be pended before being distributed as
>>> > a safety feature. It's bad for the game to have an unclear gamestate,
>>> > and the sheer scope of the invalidations overworks o, so I'm trying to
>>> > ratify the problem away. Ratification should not be considered
>>> > objectionable, as its really just an unopinionated method to change
>>> > reality, kind of like a proposal.
>>> >
>>> > -Aris
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > Not particularly motivated rn to object but please let me know why
>>> > > deliberately ratifying false info (with good intent though) is
>>> preferable
>>> > > over proposing to set the gamestate to be a certain way.
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> > > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I agree it feels weird, but at least some of the behavior has
>>> already
>>> > >> ratified and things might just confuse the gamestate.
>>> > >> ----
>>> > >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> > >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> > On Sep 8, 2017, at 7:42 AM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Tbh I feel weird about it too, and would prefer the fix to come
>>> via
>>> > >> > proposal
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 22:40 Aris Merchant
>>> > >> > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >> > I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document:
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > {{The revision to the secretary's report, available here [1], was
>>> true
>>> > >> > and correct when it was published.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > The Stamps Addendum to the Secretary's report, available here
>>> [2], was
>>> > >> > true and correct when it was published.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > [1]
>>> > >> >
>>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-September/011750.html
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > [2]
>>> > >> >
>>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-September/011751.html
>>> > >> > }}
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > For the record, these reports are not true or correct, but them
>>> not
>>> > >> > being correct would invalidate a lot of gameplay, as well as a
>>> lot of
>>> > >> > planning by players. It's rapidly becoming clear that this
>>> situation
>>> > >> > will have wide-ranging destructing impacts on the gamestate unless
>>> > >> > someone stops it.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > To anyone who has a technical objection to this, it would be
>>> > >> > appreciated if you could bring them up ASAP, at least in the next
>>> day.
>>> > >> > I would also appreciate it if they could be brought up to a-d
>>> first,
>>> > >> > to see if anyone can poke holes in them. In my opinion, an
>>> additional
>>> > >> > minor error in one of these reports would not justify the game
>>> > >> > disruption of having this problem stick around for longer. To
>>> block
>>> > >> > one potential objection, I know that the revision to the report
>>> has an
>>> > >> > effective date different from its publication date, but the date
>>> is
>>> > >> > part of the document, and so is resolved in the same way as it
>>> would
>>> > >> > be if the document is self ratified. I intend to keep behaving
>>> with
>>> > >> > the gamestate the way we thought it was, on the basis that someone
>>> > >> > will ratify away the problem eventually.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > CuddleBeam, if you frivolously object to this, I and a lot of
>>> other
>>> > >> > players will be grouchy with you. It is widely agreed that there
>>> was
>>> > >> > no way you got shines, even if the bug your scam exploited worked.
>>> > >> > There is no outcome where you get shines out of this. Gaelan
>>> probably
>>> > >> > won't either, if that's a consolation. However, the long term
>>> impact
>>> > >> > on the game will likely be the same, as I or someone else will
>>> likely
>>> > >> > ratify some equivalent document by proposal. Further, everyone
>>> will be
>>> > >> > even more irritated at you. You will have hurt Agora at no
>>> benefit to
>>> > >> > yourself or anyone else. If that isn't enough to stop you, I will
>>> ask
>>> > >> > the PM to card you by executive order for harming the game. E
>>> might
>>> > >> > refuse, but do you want to take the chance?
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > -Aris
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to