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 >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> >> >