If your reading is right, then, instead of the horrifying "take all
by-announcement actions by making a public message", we get the
slightly-less-horrifying "take any by-announcement action that you
describe in a public message, even if you don't say that you perform the
action.", since if you
Wait until you see how broken those rules are...
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 7:50 AM nch wrote:
>
> Speak for yourselves. I have a spaceship.
>
> On 7/18/19 9:41 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> > ha when do we ever
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/17/2019 11:12 PM, Rebe
Speak for yourselves. I have a spaceship.
On 7/18/19 9:41 AM, Rebecca wrote:
ha when do we ever
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 7/17/2019 11:12 PM, Rebecca wrote:
it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting
attempts for free wins without h
ha when do we ever
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 7/17/2019 11:12 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting
> > attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics.
>
> Well it's something to do right
On 7/17/2019 11:12 PM, Rebecca wrote:
it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting
attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics.
Well it's something to do right now when we don't *have* any other
game mechanics.
Historically Victory By Apathy has been a good way to bring activity
back into the game during a lull. And the fact that it proves a testing
ground for these kinds of claims makes it a sort of release valve. Jason
Cobb could have tried other actions that would've caused more gamestate
confusion
Would you rather me have ratified that I had millions of coins? I could
get a win that way, too.
Jason Cobb
On 7/18/19 2:12 AM, Rebecca wrote:
it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting
attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics.
On Thu, Ju
it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting
attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 4:11 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 15:24 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
> > I create
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:18 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I'll leave the CFJ up in hopes that it gets judged in a way that avoids
> this whole mess (although I'm not sure that there's enough space to
> bring in Rule 217 factors and get "best interests of the game").
Gratuitous:
I get from my apartment
On 7/17/19 11:00 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
My interpretation is that you publish every possible string, including
ones like "I cause Agora to murder BlogNomic.", but that it's not
EFFECTIVE unless the Rules actually state that you can do it "by
announcement" (or perhaps something like "publishing
On 7/17/19 9:37 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
Gratuitous:
If this reading were correct, any public message would automatically
take all by-announcement actions, including deregistering. I first
thought that this is probably enough to trigger Rule 1698, so if this
reading is correct, Rule 47
You're right, this reading is disastrous for the gamestate.
I'll leave the CFJ up in hopes that it gets judged in a way that avoids
this whole mess (although I'm not sure that there's enough space to
bring in Rule 217 factors and get "best interests of the game").
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 10:37
E has announced it but e has not done it by announcement, which the
rules distinguish. It would be announced but still fail to be done.
On 7/17/19 11:00 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
My interpretation is that you publish every possible string, including
ones like "I cause Agora to murder BlogNomic.", b
My interpretation is that you publish every possible string, including
ones like "I cause Agora to murder BlogNomic.", but that it's not
EFFECTIVE unless the Rules actually state that you can do it "by
announcement" (or perhaps something like "publishing").
I do agree that some protection migh
That's not my reading. The rules define "publishing" and "announcing".
Only things that the rules then say happen "by publishing" and "by
announcing" are influenced by that definition. I would* interpret it to
mean that everything listed as "by announcement" or "by publishing" is
done by every
Assuming functional messaging rules, no, I would not argue that. The
hypothetical rule doesn't provide text for it.
I suppose that I am arguing that, by my reading, one is publishing every
single string of characters. (At least) one of those strings of
characters is going to fulfill every pos
If we passed a rule that said "every message is also an intent to
declare victory by apathy", would you argue that it follows from that
text alone that every message is also a *blue* intent to declare victory
by apathy?I don't understand how you're applying characteristics of the
message.
On
Okay.
Let's take "clear" as an example adjective. If you agree that a public
message can publish a thing without specifying it, sending a public
message is "publishing" the message "I like cats.", which is certainly
clear. By the same logic, my public message is also "publishing" the
message
I don't buy this reasoning, it invalidates the meaning of those words
and nothing in the text redefines those words. I buy the idea that you
can publish something without specifying it, but it doesn't follow that
it somehow has every quality imaginable.
On 7/17/19 10:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
N
No. In addition to publishing an unambiguous, conspicuous, unobfuscated,
and clear notice, I have _in addition_ published a notice (all possible
notices, in fact) that was ambiguous, inconspicuous, obfuscated, and
unclear.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:24 PM, nch wrote:
So your notice is also amb
I'll amend that: except that if I was claiming to publish a message with
the text "lowercase" that was all caps, then I wouldn't argue that I had
published that, but as for something being conspicuous, there is text
that would be conspicuous, so I would argue that I did publish that.
Jason Cob
So your notice is also ambiguous, inconspicuous, obfuscated, and unclear?
On 7/17/19 10:23 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Yes, yes I would.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:21 PM, nch wrote:
I think it's a big jump from "this means you can publish any type of
thing without specifying it" and "this means you c
Yes, yes I would.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:21 PM, nch wrote:
I think it's a big jump from "this means you can publish any type of
thing without specifying it" and "this means you can publish any type
of thing with any qualities without it actually possessing those
qualities."
If it said tha
I think it's a big jump from "this means you can publish any type of
thing without specifying it" and "this means you can publish any type of
thing with any qualities without it actually possessing those qualities."
If it said that the notice had to be in all caps and iambic pentameter,
would
My point is that it doesn't matter if it's "conspicuous". Because the
conspicuousness requirement gets folded into the noun phrase, it gets
swept into the broken definition of to "publish". If my reading is
correct, I have published _literally everything_ by sending a public
message. By that lo
Oh I missed the "that" on first reading too. I still don't see how it is
conspicuous by your arguments. I don't think the rules vaguely implying
that it's possible, and not being noticed until now, is conspicuous.
On 7/17/19 10:04 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Sorry, there should be a "that" in my init
Sorry, there should be a "that" in my initial quote, the noun phrase
being "an announcement of intent *that unambiguously, [...] specified
the action intended to be taken and the method(s) to be used".
If the sentence were to instead read "A person published an announcement
of intent that clea
On 7/17/19 9:50 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Since the "unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
obfuscation" is an adjective phrase that modifies "an announcement of
intent", it, too, is brought into the scope of the placeholder (X),
and thus I have published "an announcement of intent th
Since the "unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
obfuscation" is an adjective phrase that modifies "an announcement of
intent", it, too, is brought into the scope of the placeholder (X), and
thus I have published "an announcement of intent that unambiguously,
clearly, conspicuously
That's a fair point in response to my first argument. I noticed a few
rules that say 'posted' instead of published, so that should probably be
cleaned up. Still, the method you published the intent isn't
"unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation". You
even admit as much by
I specifically address this: the definition of Objector in Rule 2124
does not use the broken verbiage, it says "An Objector to an intent to
perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not
withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent." - no usage
of "publis
I also wanted to test whether my statement of “I’m apathetic” was made at the
right time. It was in the same message as the intent, so was it simultaneous
with the intention? Or was it stated between “now” and the execution of the
intent, as required by the intent?
> On Dec 9, 2018, at 7:40 PM,
Yes, I guessed as much. Would have been interesting to CFJ.
And if your attempt _hadn't_ succeeded, would Jacob Arduino's TTttPF have
counted? We may never know.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, December 10, 2018 12:37 AM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:
>
>
> Personally I was going to t
Personally I was going to test (with that particular phrasing) whether
merely quoting the original message counted.
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> No, nothing specifically in mind about that. That’s just how my phone
> renders quote marks for some reason.
>
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at
No, nothing specifically in mind about that. That’s just how my phone
renders quote marks for some reason.
On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:19 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Now that this has been defused: D. Margaux, did you have anything in mind
> about curved vs. straight quotes in mind with this? i.
35 matches
Mail list logo
