Re: [s-d] [s-b] panic

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

teucer wrote:

>> How about something like "can generally be understood by the other
>> players without unreasonable effort"?
> 
> Hm.
> 
> I like it, for the most part. What I'm trying to do is find a way to
> get all of the following test cases to resolve correctly:
> 
> 1. I send out a contract defining itself as the
> plaintext/translation/etc of a block of ciphertext. (The contract
> should be invalid.)
> 1'. I send out an encrypted file and define a contract as being the
> contents thereof, a la Epimenides. (The contract should be invalid.)

Variation A:  I send out a contract with an encoded section, and later
post a reasonably simple decoding method (e.g. rot13, passworded zip)
to s-b.

Variation B:  As above, but the contract and the method are specified
in the same message.

Variation C:  As above, but the method is specified within the unencoded
portion of the contract.

These also apply to cases 2, 6, and 7.

> 3. I send out a contract in the form of an image of some
> pretty-looking text. (If I specify that the text, rather than the
> image itself, is the contract, I think it should be valid, but am
> willing to sacrifice this if I must do so for an otherwise optimal
> solution. Otherwise it isn't, since game documents by definition
> consist of text.)

This might be an interesting point of comparison:
  http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1831

> 8. I send out a game action in the form of some pretty-looking text
> describing what I do. (I actually prefer to disallow this, since it
> can get ambiguous when in a string of actions the one in the image
> took place. It may be easiest however to keep the resolution of 3 and
> 8 parallel.)

Define "pretty".

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