Re: DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation

2011-01-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: > G. wrote: > > I designed failure (I think) such that if some deregistrations failed, > > there would still be a Fix Proposal at Power 3.1 for which I was the > > only eligible voter due to inactivity. That should degrade gracefully. > > Nope, you made a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation

2011-01-23 Thread Ed Murphy
G. wrote: > Since you became inactive, I can Assume the office and do it. > Looking back I realize I have to do so because Fourth Movement > requires "G." to announce the result. Should be okay, you already resigned Promotor (possible loophole in R1450, you can act as Promotor and Assessor for th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation

2011-01-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 11-01-23 02:17 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > > On 11-01-23 01:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > This time to the proper forum: > > > > I deregister. > > > > If you are going to deregister everyone for a scam, prepare to live with > > the consequences. > > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation

2011-01-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011, ais523 wrote: > There's no need to involve Pariah here at all, players can create Rests > in eir own possession by announcement. And this scam relies on being > able to cause players to perform arbitrary actions at power 1 (making me > assume Pariah, an action, is different f

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation

2011-01-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: > G. wrote: > > > [I plan to resolve it Assessor in ~four days. > > You missed changing this bit. Of course, you could just as well > cause R2324 to make yourself Assessor when the time comes. Since you became inactive, I can Assume the office and do it.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation

2011-01-23 Thread Ed Murphy
ais523 wrote: > There's no need to involve Pariah here at all, players can create Rests > in eir own possession by announcement. And this scam relies on being > able to cause players to perform arbitrary actions at power 1 (making me > assume Pariah, an action, is different from causing me to beco

DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation

2011-01-23 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Murphy and I are now the only players CoE: comex and I are the only players of Agora Nomic, and this message was not the public forum.

DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation

2011-01-23 Thread ais523
On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 10:56 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > [This esclation attempt could be done solo, but I included Murphy > as an auditor to make sure I didn't trash the game, as it's a > rather scorched earth approach. Before I start, be aware (if you > get annoyed while reading) that there's

DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation

2011-01-23 Thread Sean Hunt
On 11-01-23 02:17 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: On 11-01-23 01:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: This time to the proper forum: I deregister. If you are going to deregister everyone for a scam, prepare to live with the consequences. -scshunt Also I heartily encourage all other Agorans to do the same. -scsh

DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation

2011-01-23 Thread Ed Murphy
G. wrote: > [I plan to resolve it Assessor in ~four days. You missed changing this bit. Of course, you could just as well cause R2324 to make yourself Assessor when the time comes.

DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation

2011-01-23 Thread Sean Hunt
On 11-01-23 01:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I deregister. -scshunt

DIS: Re: BUS: scorched earth escalation

2011-01-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011, Kerim Aydin wrote: > [Bug 1: Activity is not secured; this is a security hole for quorum > and other purposes]. Heh, after going over this for four days and reviewing it with Murphy, of course 5minuts *after* I send it I realize I could have used Inactivity plus A

DIS: Re: BUS: or, if that didn't work (a judgement for CFJ 2943)

2011-01-23 Thread omd
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 1:08 PM, ais523 wrote: > Referring to the entire paragraph (or possibly to the subsequent > sentence; my win announcements tend to explicitly say "The following > sentence is a win announcement"... in order to make the scope completely > clear) was probably the original int