On 1/15/2019 4:05 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>> I CFJ, barring D. Margaux: "D. Margaux has fulfilled eir obligation,
>>> detailed in the rule entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to
>>> the resolver the amount of Energy [e wishes] to spend" in Space Battle
I think this is a very different situation then the zombie one, and there's
a strong case to be made for TRUE. So starting a different thread here.
Let's say D. Margaux and twg had the following private conversation:
twg: I've picked a secret number - I'll call it tau. Here's a hash so
you know that I've chosen what tau is ahead of time.
D. Margaux: Sure, I'll bite: I wish to spend tau+1.
twg: Right, I now know exactly how much you wish to spend.
Then when twg later publishes both sides, e reveals the hash contents, and
tau has a reasonable, appropriate value.
Now there's two ways to adjudicate this:
1. "communicate to the resolver the amount of Energy" must be judged
strictly with all the onus of communication on the combatant. That is, D.
Margaux's messages alone must contain sufficient information to communicate
a value to any typical Agoran observer privy to D. Margaux's messages (but
not privy to the contents of the hash). This would result in false.
2. "communicate to the resolver [twg]" can include context known to twg.
Here, D. Margaux of eir own free will communicated sufficient information to
twg for the value to be determined by the resolver. While risky on D.
Margaux's part, it was eir risk to take, of eir own free will. This would
result in true.
In general, for private conversations, we've tended to lean towards #2:
allowing lingo and context to evolve, or allowing private contracts /
communications to work. That allows for more flexible, enjoyable gameplay
(where "clever arrangements" are part of that). The downside is, if done in
an official context (not a contract), it puts some onus on the Resolver to
privately decide if weird communication attempts qualify (if e publicly
reveals the two combatant's values, and one turns out to be invalidly
submitted, e's revealed the other combatant's value too early and has broken
the rules). This might be especially onerous/unfair if the duty falls to
"the non-combatant who has least recently registered".
If we find in favor of #2, there's a secondary question: whether we take
twg's word that e had set a definition for tau ahead of time, so that D.
Margaux's 'tau+1' communication uniquely defined a value when it was made.
So it's basically a "what standard of evidence do we accept?" case rather
than a "what constitutes communication".
That's worth thinking about, but first I was curious at other people's
thoughts between #1 and #2.