============================== CFJ 3105 ==============================
In the above-quoted message, or as a direct result thereof, Mister
Snuggles called a CFJ.
Called by scshunt: 19 Oct 2011 22:04:54 GMT
Assigned to Yally: 21 Oct 2011 03:36:17 GMT
Yally recused: 06 Nov 2011 16:05:47 GMT
Assigned to G.: 06 Nov 2011 16:05:47 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.: 07 Nov 2011 03:46:42 GMT
Mister Snuggles specifically attempted to send a message by
announcement, which is not allowed. Does the reasonable interpretation
of "I perform the below-quoted actions" apply? Or the similar "I
create a promise with the below text and cash it?". In fact, I'd
almost argue ambiguity since either of those could be true.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 15:51, Mister Snuggles wrote:
> hi, agora!
> sorry about repeating myself, but my last message got eaten! i hereby
> send the message quoted below.
> mister snuggles
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
Rule 478, relevant excerpt:
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
Especially in light of these cases, I argue that the scope of
"unambiguously and clearly" includes "announcing that e performs
it", and that the identity of Mister Snuggles is substantially
ambiguous due to non-trivial knock-on effects (e.g. if Mister
Snuggles initiated a judicial case, then is ais523 eligible to
judge it?). Contrast a previously-unknown person simply announcing
"I register", in which case we know (barring perjury) that e is
distinct from all other persons previously referenced by the gamestate.
Gratuitous Arguments by mister snuggles:
my identity is unambiguous, because only one person has ever used this e-mail
address. all interpretations of "mister snuggles" are objectively wrong, save
one. unknown is not the same thing as ambiguous.
Judge G.'s Arguments:
What we have here... is a failure to communicate.
For a message to be "unambiguous", it cannot depend on information
unavailable ("unknown") to an intended recipient. After all, the
intended content of any communication is generally known in the mind of
the sender: to say a communication is "clear but unknown to the
recipient" robs the term "ambiguous" of any meaning. Any distinction
between unknown and unclear was rejected when Agora first opined on
In the case of public postings: The intended recipients are Agorans (or
"a typical reasonably-informed Agoran"). The legitimate sources of
information are generally publicly-posted messages date-stamped on or
before the message in question, and facts that are common knowledge to
typical Agorans at that same time. In R478, one of the pieces of
information required for an action to be performed is an unambiguous
statement that the actor ('e') performs it; if the actor is hiding eir
identity, e does not communicate clearly that e performs it, so the
action fails. Performing any kind of electronic forensics to determine
which current Agoran is beyond any reasonable effort for interpretation.
If, for some reason, the message-sender was lying about being a current
player, e has still failed to identify emself as a unique first-class
person, and until e does, e cannot do things that persons can generally
do. As for R101(ii), requiring the identifying of oneself to exercise
this right is not at present an undue burden.
Gratuitous Arguments by mister snuggles:
i believe the word "ambiguous" is ambiguous. it
could mean "having multiple interpretations, all objectively
possible", which would mean my identity is not ambiguous, or "having
multiple interpretations, all subjectively possible (that is, not
actually known to be wrong)", which would mean my identity is
ambiguous. the second meaning of "ambiguous" is essentially the same
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote=
> For a message to be "unambiguous", it cannot depend on information
> unavailable ("unknown") to an intended recipient. =A0After all, the
> intended content of any communication is generally known in the mind of
> the sender: to say a communication is "clear but unknown to the
> recipient" robs the term "ambiguous" of any meaning. =A0Any distinction
> between unknown and unclear was rejected when Agora first opined on
g. is judging that the second meaning of "ambiguous" is the relevant one.
(now, what would happen if i said, "every first-class player calls a
cfj on ..."? that would be silly.)