Subject: [MacroNomic] Question

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 20:18:15 -0400

Is there anyone who can't use PGP encryption?  I can think of a
number of times it would be good to have private, yet verifiable
information, and PGP is the best way I can think of to do it.

--
-Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

	Success is the child of audacity.
		-Benjamin Disraeli

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 20:54:53 -0700 (PDT)

>information, and PGP is the best way I can think of to do it.

My machine is currently *not* set up to do PGP encryption (IE, I don't
have it installed and working on my linux box)  This isn't to say I
couldn't, but as of now I don't.

--JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

---

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 11:24:24 -0400

>couldn't, but as of now I don't.
	At least the way I'm envisioning it, you would only need PGP to do
something requireing encryption or to verify someone else's, so actually
installing it would be optional, but it would be unfair to use it if not
everyone had the option.

--
-Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

---

From: Aidan McLoughlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 19:00:24 +0100

>information, and PGP is the best way I can think of to do it.

err, i don't think i can use pgp, cos i don't know what it is, of course i
may have the capacity to use it and just don't know it.  I don't know....

Dan

  /================================================================\
  | Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.  |
  | But on the other hand, you have different fingers. --  :)      |
  \================================================================/

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 13:18:35 -0700 (PDT)

>installing it would be optional, but it would be unfair to use it if not

I would rather not see a requirement for encryption be added to the rules.

--JT

---

From: Jason Reed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 16:17:12 -0500

>I would rather not see a requirement for encryption be added to the rules.
Yeah. The rules and gamestate are definitely hard enough to understand
without being encrypted.

- Philo
(Avid player, Macronomic)
[email-masked] -- http://kyogen.com/pascal/
"[Young lady, ] in this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
   - Homer Simpson

---

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 17:15:13 -0400

>may have the capacity to use it and just don't know it.  I don't know....
	PGP is an encryption program.  From your headers it looks like
you're using windows, and PGP can indeed run on windows.

JT-
>I would rather not see a requirement for encryption be added to the rules.
	It seems to me that being able to have secret actions would be
interesting.  Do other people agree?

--
-Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

---

From: Jason Reed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 16:27:33 -0500

>interesting.  Do other people agree?
In all honesty, yeah, it could be somewhat interesting, but I don't see it
as being worth the effort of making sure (or even trying to encourage)
people actually set up PGP who don't have it already.

- Philo

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 14:21:35 -0700 (PDT)

>interesting.  Do other people agree?

My personal opinion is that the current distinction of private, personal
and public is sufficient.  I would not like to see secret actions being
performed in public (but that's just a personal preference, nothing hard
and fast)

--JT

---

From: Towsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 17:33:16 -0400

>people actually set up PGP who don't have it already.
	What I was thinking of specifically was secret oaths.  Two players
could make a binding agreement, but unless one of them violated it it
wouldn't need to become public.  One would make a key and send it to the
other, then encrypt the oath and send it publicly.  The second player would
ensure that it was right, and publicly agree with it, without saying what
was in it.  If there were a dispute either player could send the
unencrypted version along with the key for anyone who wanted to to verify
the decryption.

--
-Henry Towsner

	<[email-masked]>

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 14:34:42 -0700 (PDT)

>unencrypted version along with the key for anyone who wanted to to verify

This is something I would particularly dislike seeing.  Something like
that should (imho) be public knowledge.  There is nothing stopping players
from making non-binding agreements in private.  binding agreements should
be a matter of public record, and I would object to any proposal to make
them secret.

--JT