============================== CFJ 3106 ==============================
A public message sent by email@example.com has caused the
initiation of a CFJ.
Called by omd: 19 Oct 2011 23:40:24 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
Although nicknames and email addresses are generally
considered unambiguous ways to refer to a person even if we don't know
his real name (which, of course, itself is not inherently unambiguous
or unique), "Mister Snuggles" does not serve the practical purposes of
identification, because it does not allow us to distinguish the
referent from other relevant identities. Therefore, it cannot be
considered to identify anyone - so the author of those messages did
not actually announce that any particular person was performing an
action, so did not meet the criteria of Rule 478.
Since Snuggles does not seem to actually fear eir identity becoming
known, this interpretation does not meaningfully violate eir R101 ii.
I suppose you might consider a John Doe pseudonym to be similar. You
can accuse John Does of doing something without knowing their
identities or number, but you cannot deal with John Doe #7 specially
until the court has found a corresponding person and thus given the
name a definition.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Mister Snuggles wrote:
>> i also call a cfj on the statement "the executor of this public message
cannot be determined with reasonable effort".
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.)