On 12/31/24 6:41 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
Gratuitous:
This is trivially FALSE. "in this message" means the message in which
the CFJ was called.
Ha, initially I didn't even catch that the first sentence is a
counterargument to the second.
The point being, "this" has more tha
On 12/31/24 6:41 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
Gratuitous:
"in this message" means the message in which
the CFJ was called.
This argument is not one I agree with.
--
Mischief
Collector, Illuminator, Prime Minister
Hat: steampunk hat
Vitality: alive
Bang holdings: 2
On 12/31/24 5:55 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
I think I would object to this on principle. My expectation was that
contests would be, well, contests, rather than arbitrage on the spendy
-> candle conversion rate.
Even with the double risk element (risk that another participant wi
On 12/31/24 17:53, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> Quick summary: players are better off -- in expectation, at least --
> gambling their excess spendies here than converting them directly to
> radiance, but there is also risk involved. Also, the Veblen might even
> affect the outcome!
>
>
I posted a prior version of this to Discord earlier this month for some
initial feedback, but I wanted to give folks another chance to weigh in.
Because the amendment process is (deliberately) a bit cumbersome and
making it into a contest will require acting without 2 objections, I'd
rather
I’ll just push the boulder normally.
The previous sentence is a game action intended to push the boulder
——
Ben
From: agora-business on behalf of 4st
nomic via agora-business
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2024 3:15:08 PM
To: Agora Business
Cc: 4st nomic <4st.no..
6 matches
Mail list logo
