On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> A person whose Vexity is zero may initiate a Call for Judgement by
> announcement. A person whose Vexity is not zero may initiate a Call
> for Judgement with N Agoran Support, where N is the value of that
> person's Vexity switch.
The f
I should also add: If a player wants to use all eir hard-earned shinies
on useless CFJs (which the judges will get paid for resolving), then e
should feel free.
On 07/18/17 20:26, Nic Evans wrote:
>
> On 07/18/17 20:13, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> This loosely replicates the idea of a vexatious litiga
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
If a person's Vexity is zero, the Referee may increase that
person's Vexity with 1 Agoran Support. Otherwise, the Referee may
increase that person's Vexity with N Agoran Support, where N is the
present value of the Vexity switch for the perso
On 07/18/17 20:13, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> This loosely replicates the idea of a vexatious litigant, and could easily be
> folded into nichdel’s penalty reforms. The short timeout on Vexity, and the
> increasing consent requirement for increasing Vexity, is meant to prevent a
> rogue Referee
> Add a new rule, titled "Vexity", with Power 2 and the text
>
>Vexity is a natural person switch, tracked by the Referee. The
>default value of a Vexity switch is zero. Changes to a player's
>Vexity are secured.
Changes to a person’s Vexity are secured.
-o
signature.asc
Descripti
> On Jul 18, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> Extensive use - some might even say abuse - of the Call for Judgement system
> to test abstruse philosophical matters, rather than to resolve bona fide
> gameplay disagreements, will inevitably have a chilling effect on playing
> Agora.
The difference is Shinies are unstable (remember, we'll lose them all when
we pass nichdel's amendment), and don't have the security and "mining" that
were attractive features that made bitcoin go. Also agora has shown no sign
of growing to millions of people thusfar and only players can use them.
I keep finding myself thinking about the 1 BTC Pizza incident - at the time,
bitcoins were basically a curio, with no effective market whatsoever; now,
paying a whole bitcoin for something as trivial as a pizza would be foolhardy.
-o
> On Jul 18, 2017, at 7:51 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
>
> I still
I still think Shinies and dollars are not equivalent. There is no official
exchange rate for apples and US dollars, but you can pay dollars for
apples. The same is clearly true with CB's payment of 20 dollars. It's like
paying 20$ for monopoly money. If I did that, monopoly money would not
start ha
I just thought that Nichdel and Nickle were fun words to use together. I
do hope I succeeded in paying em something, if I failed, i'll likely do
something else to pay em for eir time.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:42 PM Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 17:34 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >
Yes. E MAY consider it due to R2450, and e CAN consider it via official
recognition
of the offense via R2426. The consideration is implicit in the act of carding.
And if e does so when the pledge isn't broken - you're right, that may be a
cardable rules breakage that didn't previously exist.
Wouldn't the Referee need to Consider that the pledge has been Broken too
in order to issue the card? (or can he just issue the card because he wants
to, even without considering an infraction? In which case, wouldn't that
action be cardable too? Giving cards without a reason to? Treading off
plato
In my view, it is always accepted if it is a greater player (remember, not
decoration) and/or is not actively spam.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 16:20 Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know they're
> someone skilled in doing it. -> *Anyone else skillful enoug
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I’ll note that it’s not obvious that Rule 101 (“The Game of Agora”) can be
> broken.
> The relevant clause is:
>
> > **Please** treat Agora Right Good Forever.
>
> (Emphasis mine.)
>
> However, game tradition takes this “Please” as a constraint, an
On Jul 9, 2017, at 9:50 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever.
>
> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to CB
> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to
> cool off. But I'm now convinc
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> (Note: there's been a lot of followup discussion in a-d, but I assume
> that PSS is aware of it as e favoured the case and thus it doesn't need
> to be repeated here.)
None of that discussion so far is about the case itself, just meta-stuff
about me calli
So it's regulated. And, as you say in your original post, many of us can't
consider the pledge broken *and have that consideration have legal effect*.
But the Referee CAN, because there's a mechanism for em to do so (Carding
as a form of recognition). Maybe I'm missing the issue?
On Tue, 18 J
Yes I agree with that, but due to that, it still describes a success case.
With this example I hope its more clear:
Imagine we didn't have R7866 as it is now., and I post:
"I pledge will give Bob 1 shiny after he gives me an Estate."
Then he gives me an Estate.
And 3 weeks pass, and I still have
Anyone else could create that value, even if we don't know they're someone
skilled in doing it. -> *Anyone else skillful enough could create that
value, even if we don't know they're someone with that skill.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Yes, that's also what I dislik
Yes, that's also what I dislike lol."Content of the game action" thing. If
someone entirely anonymous posted Kerim's action and I consider it
interesting (even better if others consider it interesting), I'd contribute
with my fraction to "game custom" with that I consider that it should be
"accepta
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> For me, if Kerim (or anyone else) can contribute with CFJs which are
> fruitful,
> then game custom should accept it regardless of prior titles/merits (those
> being
> relevant, but just for an individual personal pre-scanning process). The
> content
That isn't what I meant by "greater players". I meant greater players in a
sense of including watchers and others who engage or have engaged.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 15:45 Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I agree with that it's great to have Kerim add CFJs but I massively
> dislike that "greater players" arg
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but super cool
> though).
> Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal consideration" is
> all it
> takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in the "at the moment" argume
I agree with that it's great to have Kerim add CFJs but I massively dislike
that "greater players" argument for it.
If anyone else much decorated than Kerim posted Kerim's CFJs in the same
way, would that be wrong?
For me, if Kerim (or anyone else) can contribute with CFJs which are
fruitful, the
I present the following as a gratuitous argument to that CFJ, which is 16
characters in length and with the following SHA-1 hash:
- 585b7880ef0394acb586274ba623ecd0232fbdc2
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 charact
I would argue that non-players who are greater players are given that right
by game custom.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 15:28 Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and
> then
> > a no
You are interpreting it as at that moment it may be considered broken, but
I more logical and common interpretation would be that it may be considered
broken at that moment or more specifically it may be considered to have
been broken at that moment.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 15:26 Cuddle Beam wrote
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and then
> a non-player with the help of the arbitor could have no limit on CFJs as
> the SHALL NOT does not apply to them.
I shall try to contain the heady rush of po
How doesn't it hold up?
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> No, the at the moment argument doesn’t hold up, I just felt that G. had
> made that point. It is poorly worded, but still effective.
>
> Publius Scrib
No, the at the moment argument doesn’t hold up, I just felt that G. had made
that point. It is poorly worded, but still effective.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 18, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then l
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:21 PM, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but super cool
>> though). Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal
>> consideration" is all it takes t
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but super cool
> though). Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal
> consideration" is all it takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in the
> "at the moment" ar
Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but super cool
though). Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal
consideration" is all it takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in
the "at the moment" argument? All cool?)
Interestingly, I observed that the arbitor may accept excess cases and then a
non-player with the help of the arbitor could have no limit on CFJs as the
SHALL NOT does not apply to them.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 18, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Pub
I favor this CFJ.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 18, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> I hereby pledge to perform as specified in a document 82 characters in
> length with the following SHA-1 hash:
> 0
I believe this is two different uses of the term. The form used by G. is an
active verb equivalent to “to believe”, while the form in the rules is stating
when a status has changed and it may be considered for legal purposes broken.
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@g
- "Considering a pledge to be broken" is a regulated action, because R7866
now describes how it succeeds:
And R2125: "(2) describe the circumstances under which the action would
succeed or fail" (assuming that the use of "or" there means that its "describe
the circumstances under which the action
Where in the rules is this regulated?
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 18, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> True, but are you *considering it to be broken*? If so, you actually can't do
> that. Considering it to be broken or not is regu
True, but are you *considering it to be broken*? If so, you actually can't
do that. Considering it to be broken or not is regulated.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Alex Smith
wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 20:33 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Proto actions:
> >
> > - "I pledge to not post the
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 20:33 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Proto actions:
>
> - "I pledge to not post the string "ice cream"
>
> - "ice cream"
>
> - Shortly after that, post "I CFJ: "I've NOT broken my most recent
> pledge""
>
> Gratuitous Arguments:
>
> - R7866 "A pledge may be considered broken
Proto actions:
- "I pledge to not post the string "ice cream"
- "ice cream"
- Shortly after that, post "I CFJ: "I've NOT broken my most recent pledge""
Gratuitous Arguments:
- R7866 "A pledge may be considered broken *at the moment* the pledger
engages in conduct proscribed by that pledge."
-
Well. I suppose a nickel's worth of Shiny rounds to zero at that exchange
rate.
天火狐
On 18 July 2017 at 06:15, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Bam. Paid.
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> (I don't think I should reveal any more, given that there's quite a bit of
> private data here, but this should do. 20 bu
Bam. Paid.
[image: Inline image 1]
(I don't think I should reveal any more, given that there's quite a bit of
private data here, but this should do. 20 bucks sent.)
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I pay Cuddlebeam 1 Shiny. (Cuddlebeam: contact me off-list if your pledge
43 matches
Mail list logo
