On Thursday 20 December 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
> (Ratification is a standing acknowledgment that
> certain levels of difficulty aren't worth the effort.)
Especially considering the amount of game actions Fookiemyartug has taken.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
To be fair, I was not certain that Agora would accept Fookiemyartug's
retroactivity mumbo-jumbo, hence my reason for stating that it was a
test. I did however search the ruleset first to see if there was any
clear conflict with my actions. I
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> To be fair, I was not certain that Agora would accept Fookiemyartug's
> retroactivity mumbo-jumbo, hence my reason for stating that it was a
> test. I did however search the ruleset first to see if there was any
> clear conflict with my actions. In hindsi
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Zefram wrote:
> We don't necessarily need to change the standard. We need to consider
> whether the proposed loophole was actually believed by the offending
> player. There must be a point beyond which we'd say that this player
> can't actually have believed that the loophol
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Roger Hicks wrote:
> At the point in time where Fookiemyartug registered, the courts had
> not established that concepts/objects created by contracts had no
> bearing on Agora, except when recognized in equity court. I believe it
> was actually the nkep scam that solidified t
On Dec 20, 2007 4:45 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find it difficult to say what BobTHJ could have honestly believed on
> the balance of probabilities. Retroactivity doesn't seem at all like
> the sort of thing that Agorans would be likely to allow, and I'm sure
> a reasonable player w
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>The standard needs to be "would a reasonable player with the same information
>(including knowledge of motives) believe the same thing?" Otherwise, anyone
>can always avoid punishment by saying "I believed that [through a completely
>and utterly unbelievable loophole] I would b
On Dec 20, 2007 3:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, comex wrote:
> > On 12/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The statements I made regarding Fookiemyartug I believed (through the
> >> retroactivity clause) to be able to be proven true.
> >
> >
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, comex wrote:
> On 12/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The statements I made regarding Fookiemyartug I believed (through the
>> retroactivity clause) to be able to be proven true.
>
> Interesting; if e did, then not even an APOLOGY is appropriate.
The standard
On 12/20/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The statements I made regarding Fookiemyartug I believed (through the
> retroactivity clause) to be able to be proven true.
Interesting; if e did, then not even an APOLOGY is appropriate.
10 matches
Mail list logo
