Index ← 3506 CFJ 3507 3508 → text
==============================  CFJ 3507  ==============================

      With a proper choice of what language to employ for an Agoran
      activity which requires language, any content in the Universe
      (which is sufficiently accessible to the intended audience of the
      use of such language) can be made relevant to Agora.

========================================================================

Caller:                       CuddleBeam

Judge:                        grok
Judgement:                    DISMISS

========================================================================

History:

Called by CuddleBeam:         22 May 2017
Assigned to grok:             22 May 2017
Judged DISMISS by grok:       23 May 2017

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

* Agora doesn't favor any particular language, provided that the recipient
can understand it.
* Nomic involves the communication of actions, and language is a necessity
of communication, so concerns of language are relevant (and the rules of
such languages).
* I have an amount of freedom in choosing what language I want to use.
* There is no explicit reason to heavily favor more historically
established languages than others.
* Therefore, my arbitrarily chosen (but explained) language is usable in
Agora.
* Cuddlebeam's Big Language.
* Knowledge of if the Universe exists or not is a necessity to be able to
correctly interpret and understand Cuddlebeam's Big Language (otherwise you
don't know if the cipher is there or not, and you wouldn't be able to
understand the full meaning of the message).
* I could've placed any arbitrary sufficiently-accessible content as the
Big Cipher instead, thus making it relevant to the language, thus making it
relevant to communication (would I use that language), thus making it
relevant to a communicated game action (in that language), this making it
relevant to Agoran gameplay which is built on communication itself.
* If the Big Cipher's meaning of "the message this special cipher is part
of is in Cuddlebeam's Big Language" isn't deemed sufficiently impactful, it
can be arbitrarily made more impactful.

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

For the purpose of this message, "Cuddlebeam's Big Language" is a language
with the following rules:
* Cuddlebeam's Big Language is identical to English, with the addition that
the Universe is a pictographic special cipher (in itself). This is the Big
Cipher.
* The Big Cipher, instead of being placed in rows or columns of characters,
is instead left to be where the Universe happens to be. This is the correct
typographic use of such a cipher.
* This special cipher has one meaning. That meaning is that the message
this special cipher is part of is in Cuddlebeam's Big Language.

Note that perceiving the Universe in its entirety isn't a necessity of the
language, just knowing that the Universe, is, well. There.

This entire message is in Cuddlebeam's Big Language. (And the Universe is
there. I hope.)

========================================================================

Judge's Arguments:

Taking into account (recent) precedent and in the interest of a judgment
that is best for Agora in the future, I judge CFJ 3507 DISMISS and
submit the following arguments.

The joint judgment in CFJs 3499 and 3500 lays out a clear judicial and
linguistic precedent for the use of language in Agora [1]. Ultimately, I
agree that most if not all of the decision in that joint judgment is
applicable here as well--what language you use is not necessarily the
question, but rather how you use it and if it is comprehensible by the
collective of Agora players. Effectively the same question is being
asked here as there: can users use ANY language?

The answer of course, is a trivial yes with a functional no. Taking
nichdel's additional recommendation and gratuitous arguments about the
descriptive nature of language and combining them with the CFJ language
indicating that Agoran discourse is limited to what players can
collectively comprehend indicates that "trivially yes, functionally no"
is an appropriate response for this question.

For sake of judicial consistency as well as to prevent a
misinterpretation of the arguments herein, I judge DISMISS.

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28211.html 

========================================================================