Zefram wrote: > Michael suggests that we could equally well take game actions by messages > that do not take the form of statements. For example, the rules could > state that a vote is submitted by sending a message containing the > magic word "ABULAFIA" followed by a proposal number and a vote value. > In this case, being a non-statement, the message would indeed not have a > truth value. But that is not what the rules say, and it is specious to > argue that the present rules are equivalent to that in all aspects just > because of an equivalence in some aspects.
Except that a huge proportion of votes we accept are non-sentences: > Proposal 9999 This is a Proposal 2 Oi 2xFOR One might argue that this is shorthand for a sentence, but in fact the rules don't actually state anywhere that such actions have to be well formed sentences, just that they have to be clear. You can make a clear assertion of public intent without it being a statement, such as the above. Don't get me wrong, I think your argument is reasonable where the rules are silent, I'm just more swayed by Michael's. -Goethe
