On 3/8/2022 1:59 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> I number the CFJ on the statement [Jason's purported apathy intent was sent
> to all players.] CFJ 3948 and assign it to G.
Judgement:
The relevant rules text in question (Rule 478/40):
A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to
all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be
public.
Determining whether a message was "sent to all players" is not defined in
the rules, and is explicitly separate from sending via public fora. So
common definitions/common sense apply. Further, as suggested by CFJ 3884,
the use of definitions around communication may be medium-dependent. So
what would constitute "sending to" a player in the
https://discord.gg/JCC6YGc discussion forum?
First, the sole fact that the message was entered in a chat-based
discussion forum is not sufficient for a message posted there to be
considered "sent to" another player, even if that player is a frequent
participant in that forum. Players are not required to monitor/respond in
discussion forums (CFJ 1888), and in the chat medium, it would be
unreasonable to expect a potential recipient to have received a message
from amongst a stream of generally-unrelated chat based on the message
contents alone.
At a bare minimum, the message (to be considered "sent to" a player) would
need to use the medium-dependent metadata associated with @mentioning a
player in Discord, which provides a generally-persistent flag to the
receiving player that something has been addressed directly to them, which
persists until they view the message. This changes the effort of the
recipient finding the message from "unreasonable" to "at least somewhat
reasonable." Requiring this as a bare minimum is a very minor hurdle for
the sender, so it doesn't remove flexibility of the sender in choosing how
to send the message via that medium (R478, in part, allows for Agoran
actions to be taken even if all public fora are inoperative, and in such
situations some flexibility in interpretation might be needed e.g. to
prevent ossification).
I'll note this would be a bare minimum. For example, if a player was a
member of the forum (capable of being messaged), but hadn't logged in for
some months, this (sending a ping) might still be unreasonable, as there
is no duty to monitor a DIS forum for any length of time, even while being
a member. That's for future edge cases to decide. In this case, since
the message in question didn't meet the bare minimum requirement for
"sending to" that would be appropriate for that communication medium, I
judge FALSE.
