>that say that an action done by announcement has to be intelligible to
anyone
All of the japanese isn't intelligible to me, yet it doesn't seem to have
broken that, regardless of what you believe (I understand your Cantus but I
doubt people should change their (already debated) convictions because it
makes someone unhappy. If I debate something with someone and after a good
round of it, am not convinced, I'm certainly not going to change opinion if
the other person declares that they're very unhappy about my conviction. I
know your Cantus is more than just "I'm unhappy", but that portion
shouldn't be part of what changes people's minds, it should be the
arguments themselves, which seem to have been dealt with already or are
things people should have already had in mind. I haven't seen replies to it
since though, so I'm still not too sure on the status of that. But I assume
people are still unconvinced, just that they'll avoid the topic out of
politeness). I was going to piggyback on that too. Plenty of (japan name
here)'s actions and Agencies and such haven't been removed/declared
illegal, so I assume that cryptic stuff like that still has standing or
leverage I can lawyer with.
>publicly-made pledge
I feel like a lot of the shielding is going to be invisible meta-rules
("public means that it needs to be sent to the public fora", "the pledge
needs to be public itself and understandable", etc). Is there an Agoran
slang term for invisible meta-rules? Something neutral and easy to use.
Game convention? Cultural rules?
If that shielding doesn't get in the way, I'm guessing the trick would
apply to "publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support
<https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2124> (syn. "consent") for an
announcement of intent to perform the action" too? Basically anything
"public" but that isn't explicitly grounded in the usual defenses. Like
"Public Document" in a couple other rules.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Then from there, start to vie for that I only need to send the
> information to
> > whoever is affected and the officer in question (for example, if I give
> bob 2
> > shinies, I'd only need to give hash translation to bob an the
> shiny-officer
> > and then enjoy secrecy until the officer posts their report, which could
> be
> > valuable in certain cases).
>
> This would clearly fail for anything that has to be done "by announcement".
> There's strong case law (many precedents, I won't summarize) that say that
> an action done by announcement has to be intelligible to anyone (i.e. to
> the public) based on the publicly posted info. That's what "unambiguously
> and clearly specifying" means in R478:
> 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
> it.
>
> *IF* my trick works, it only works because of the weird phrase
> "publicly-made
> pledge" in R2450, which doesn't include a phrase like "a person CAN make
> a pledge by announcement". This leaves it unclear as to whether the text
> of
> the pledge need be included, or whether a public statement of "I make a
> pledge"
> is enough to say I "made" it in public, even if some details are hidden
> (but
> verifiable).
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>
