Alex Smith on Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:23:58 -0700 (MST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[s-b] [Fwd: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender] 

[Resending. It seems that spoon-business@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx isn't a PF for
anything...]

On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 10:56 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Elliott Hird
> <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I don't deny that 5E10 is an awkward heap of trivia, BTW, but I
think we
> > should leave cleaning it up to the proposal process incrementally to
avoid
> > breaking things. And because it's not a crisis (not that any of the
"crises"
> > we're in Emergency for really are, but oh well.)
> 
> Things are already broken about as much as possible tbh, as Rule 5E10
> allows anyone to perform any game action-- I haven't seen any
> arguments against this, though feel free to supply one.  (C Nomic
> doesn't count because that scam failed for other reasons, as
> mentioned.)  If this is indeed the case, the gamestate is totally
> undefined.
> 
> Rule 5E10 just needs to be rewritten.  First, the redefinition of a
> Game Action as just about anything makes no sense and has caused a
> great deal of scamming and confusion.  I have not been able to
> ascertain what the point of that was.  Second, it should be worded
> such that it's not granting authorization on its own authority to
> otherwise invalid Game Actions-- and no, I don't mean sticking a
> paragraph to that effect at the end.

I repeal Rule 5e10. [[To stop other people using it for a
dictatorship.]]

I change "persons" to "persons except ais523" in rule 5e3333, then
renumber rule 5e3333 to rule 5e-1. [[Exploiting a bug in comex's scam,
which is the precedence rules. Again, I'm exploiting this before anyone
else does; the dictatorship here is Normish-style, i.e. I'll use it only
to prevent the game being destroyed, and only as a last resort, and not
for personal gain.]]

There are lots of reasons why this might fail (for instance, I might not
have a dictatorship). However, in the particular combination of
circumstances in which it works, I think it's badly needed.

-- 
ais523
--- Begin Message --- 
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

  spoon-business@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<spoon-business@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
    host yzma.clarkk.net [66.219.50.42]: 550 <spoon-business@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
    User unknown

------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------

Return-path: <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from [147.188.128.127] (helo=bham.ac.uk)
	by sun61.bham.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.67)
	(envelope-from <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>)
	id 1LKLrT-0005O7-Ot
	for spoon-business@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:01:27 +0000
Received: from sun73.bham.ac.uk ([147.188.128.42])
	by bham.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LKLrT-0003cj-F0
	for spoon-business@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:01:27 +0000
Received: from [92.236.187.64] (helo=[192.168.1.2])
	by sun73.bham.ac.uk with esmtpsa (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128)
	(Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <ais523@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
	id 1LKLrT-0006ht-H7
	for spoon-business@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:01:27 +0000
Subject: BUS: Sorry for piling on more ambiguity, but...
From: Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: ais523@xxxxxxxxxx
To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-Reply-To: <6bf32280901060756m4410e932j1afb95fc85592374@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3A924FB6-A6FC-4D5D-B3ED-1B9553FF5595@xxxxxxxxx>
	 <96546271-37E9-4476-91ED-E68FDAE07B71@xxxxxxxxx>
	 <6bf32280901060756m4410e932j1afb95fc85592374@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:01:19 +0000
Message-Id: <1231286479.8219.38.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.2 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 10:56 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Elliott Hird
> <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I don't deny that 5E10 is an awkward heap of trivia, BTW, but I think we
> > should leave cleaning it up to the proposal process incrementally to avoid
> > breaking things. And because it's not a crisis (not that any of the "crises"
> > we're in Emergency for really are, but oh well.)
> 
> Things are already broken about as much as possible tbh, as Rule 5E10
> allows anyone to perform any game action-- I haven't seen any
> arguments against this, though feel free to supply one.  (C Nomic
> doesn't count because that scam failed for other reasons, as
> mentioned.)  If this is indeed the case, the gamestate is totally
> undefined.
> 
> Rule 5E10 just needs to be rewritten.  First, the redefinition of a
> Game Action as just about anything makes no sense and has caused a
> great deal of scamming and confusion.  I have not been able to
> ascertain what the point of that was.  Second, it should be worded
> such that it's not granting authorization on its own authority to
> otherwise invalid Game Actions-- and no, I don't mean sticking a
> paragraph to that effect at the end.

I repeal Rule 5e10. [[To stop other people using it for a
dictatorship.]]

I change "persons" to "persons except ais523" in rule 5e3333, then
renumber rule 5e3333 to rule 5e-1. [[Exploiting a bug in comex's scam,
which is the precedence rules. Again, I'm exploiting this before anyone
else does; the dictatorship here is Normish-style, i.e. I'll use it only
to prevent the game being destroyed, and only as a last resort, and not
for personal gain.]]

There are lots of reasons why this might fail (for instance, I might not
have a dictatorship). However, in the particular combination of
circumstances in which it works, I think it's badly needed.

-- 
ais523

--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business