Assuming functional messaging rules, no, I would not argue that. The
hypothetical rule doesn't provide text for it.
I suppose that I am arguing that, by my reading, one is publishing every
single string of characters. (At least) one of those strings of
characters is going to fulfill every possible quality that a string of
characters can have (including "clear", "unambiguous", etc.). If "blue"
were a quality that a string of characters can have (or something
supported by the message board, not sure if it is), then I would argue
that sending a public message would "publish" a blue message.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:35 PM, nch wrote:
If we passed a rule that said "every message is also an intent to
declare victory by apathy", would you argue that it follows from that
text alone that every message is also a *blue* intent to declare
victory by apathy?I don't understand how you're applying
characteristics of the message.
On 7/17/19 10:32 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Okay.
Let's take "clear" as an example adjective. If you agree that a
public message can publish a thing without specifying it, sending a
public message is "publishing" the message "I like cats.", which is
certainly clear. By the same logic, my public message is also
"publishing" the message "skfdhkjsdfhksdjf" (intentionally
gibberish), which is certainly unclear. Thus, my one public message
has published both a notice that is clear and a notice that is
unclear. That's my logic at least.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:29 PM, nch wrote:
I don't buy this reasoning, it invalidates the meaning of those
words and nothing in the text redefines those words. I buy the idea
that you can publish something without specifying it, but it doesn't
follow that it somehow has every quality imaginable.
On 7/17/19 10:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
No. In addition to publishing an unambiguous, conspicuous,
unobfuscated, and clear notice, I have _in addition_ published a
notice (all possible notices, in fact) that was ambiguous,
inconspicuous, obfuscated, and unclear.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:24 PM, nch wrote:
So your notice is also ambiguous, inconspicuous, obfuscated, and
unclear?
On 7/17/19 10:23 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Yes, yes I would.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:21 PM, nch wrote:
I think it's a big jump from "this means you can publish any
type of thing without specifying it" and "this means you can
publish any type of thing with any qualities without it actually
possessing those qualities."
If it said that the notice had to be in all caps and iambic
pentameter, would you argue that you've met those conditions as
well?
On 7/17/19 10:14 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
My point is that it doesn't matter if it's "conspicuous".
Because the conspicuousness requirement gets folded into the
noun phrase, it gets swept into the broken definition of to
"publish". If my reading is correct, I have published
_literally everything_ by sending a public message. By that
logic, I have also published "a conspicuous announcement of
intent to [do whatever]".
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:10 PM, nch wrote:
Oh I missed the "that" on first reading too. I still don't see
how it is conspicuous by your arguments. I don't think the
rules vaguely implying that it's possible, and not being
noticed until now, is conspicuous.
On 7/17/19 10:04 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Sorry, there should be a "that" in my initial quote, the noun
phrase being "an announcement of intent *that unambiguously,
[...] specified the action intended to be taken and the
method(s) to be used".
If the sentence were to instead read "A person published an
announcement of intent that clearly quacked." (all I did was
simplify the part after "that", it is obvious that the
wording "that clearly quacked" modifies "announcement [of
intent]".
And, anyway, if this reading is correct, as ais523 notes, we
have bigger problems than whether or not I have Declared Apathy.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 10:59 PM, nch wrote:
On 7/17/19 9:50 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Since the "unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and
without obfuscation" is an adjective phrase that modifies
"an announcement of intent", it, too, is brought into the
scope of the placeholder (X), and thus I have published "an
announcement of intent that unambiguously, clearly,
conspicuously, and without obfuscation specified the action
to be taken and the method(s) to be used", as I have sent a
public message. Your argument would hold if the clarity
phrasing were to instead apply to the act of publishing,
but it is broken because it applies to the noun
"announcement".
Jason Cobb
Those are adverbs, not adjectives. They modify 'published'
as in "unambiguously published" They do not, and cannot
modify "an announcement of intent." "Unambiguously
announcement" is unnatural, and incorrect. It wold be
"unambiguous announcement".
On 7/17/19 10:47 PM, nch wrote:
That's a fair point in response to my first argument. I
noticed a few rules that say 'posted' instead of
published, so that should probably be cleaned up. Still,
the method you published the intent isn't "unambiguously,
clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation". You even
admit as much by saying "No, you didn't miss an intent
(well, at least not one that stated what I was doing)."
On 7/17/19 9:39 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I specifically address this: the definition of Objector
in Rule 2124 does not use the broken verbiage, it says
"An Objector to an intent to perform an action is an
eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not
withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that
intent." - no usage of "publish" or "announce".
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 10:36 PM, nch wrote:
On 7/17/19 9:19 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Arguments
The key (broken) wording here is from Rule 478:
A person "publishes" or "announces" something by
sending a
public message.
This wording does not require that the public
message actually
contains the "something" that I am
publishing/announcing. This
wording effectively says that, for all X, a person
"publishes" or
"announces" X by sending a public message.
By this reasoning everyone that has sent a public
message in that time has objected, since objecting would
be a possible value of X.
Rule 2465 states that I can Declare Apathy without
Objection. By
Rule 2595, I must fulfill certain conditions to do
so. I will prove
that I have done so for each one individually:
1. "[I must have] published an announcement of
intent that
unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and
without obfuscation
specified the action to be taken and the
method(s) to be used".
This invokes the definition of to "publish",
which is specified
in Rule 478. Putting parentheses around the
object of to
publish, "[I must have] published (an
announcement of intent
that unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and
without
obfuscation specified the action to be taken and
the method(s)
to be used)". Going back to my paraphrased
definition of to
"publish", the parenthesized phrase takes the
place of the
placeholder X, and thus to "publish" such an
announcement of
intent is to send a public message. I certainly
have done so, an
example one is in evidence.
I don't see how this can be considered to be either
unambiguous or without obfuscation.
