On 1/16/2019 5:37 AM, D. Margaux wrote:>
>> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote:
>>
>> Hold on, isn't that exactly what happened here? "rau" is effectively (if >> we strip away all the fluff about constructed languages, which was a fun >> excuse but isn't really relevant) a secret code devised for communication >> between the resolver (me) and the person who first used it in a public
>> message (coincidentally, also me).

Thanks for clarifying the issue twg - I was treating it generically, and
didn't look closely enough about who was purporting to communicate with
whom. Will reconsider.

> I think this is different. If you said, “I communicated a number to
> myself, on pain of no faking,” I think that would maybe be valid. But as I > understood it, you said “the number is rau,” with rau being a word in a
> private language that seemingly has no fixed meaning to translate into
> English. So I think that’s the same as no choice all.

Well, there's a balance to be struck between accepting a person's word
always, and requiring, as a general principle, some kind of standards of
evidence so a person in this situation doesn't have a consistent advantage/
temptation.  In the past, a couple times, I remember sending a "private
email to myself" to timestamp a private game-affecting transaction.  I don't
like requiring such things for the same reason I don't like requiring random
dice rolls to be verifiable, but maybe in this situation the court should
impose such requirements.  Hopefully that would be temporary, the best
solution would be to legislatively remove situations where "communicating to
oneself" (even through proxies) is a valid and legal move.

Reply via email to