On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 01:26:32PM -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 1/29/2021 5:55 AM, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 1/29/21 7:52 AM, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > >> The issue is a white ribbon scam. The pet argument (that your pet can > >> consent to play a game with you) allows a single individual to generate > >> a new white ribbon, which is extremely valuable. Working with other > >> Agorans means you have to negotiate with other people that value white > >> ribbons. The friend scam already exists in the current rules. My concern > >> is that this adds a new scam. > > > > I should add: There was some debate about whether the pet argument is > > true. I believe it is. I like the intent of the proposal, and I know > > Aris has worked hard on it, but I also think there's probably a solution > > that does what we want without including pets/socially intelligent > > animals. So, PRESENT. > > A paraphrase of a Discord conversation might be useful here, to get at the > logic. It came about from looking at CFJ 2398. CFJ 2398 asked whether > (under an old definition), a young child was a "person". The judgement at > the time suggested that (under that old definition) there might be a > dividing line for personhood based on whether a child was old enough to > successfully communicate. > > So the conversation: > "Under the new proposed definition, is a newborn baby meant to qualify?" > > "Yes, a baby can certainly communicate needs, so would be a person." > > "By raw communication standards, my dog is more communicative than my baby > was as a newborn - with the dog, you can differentiate "need food" from > "need to pee" etc. which can be hard with newborns. So if personhood is > defined by communication ability, and written so that babies would > qualify, then dogs would qualify too." > > Whether a dog (or baby) can 'consent' to play Agora is a trickier issue > that we discussed a bit. I don't think we came to any conclusions on what > the current rules allowed, there were arguments on both sides. It was > noted that one way around the issue might be to accept that a dog is a > person under the new rule, but make sure the consent definition is amended > such that someone can't consent if e clearly can't understand what e's > consenting to. > > -G.
Thanks for the info, nix and G. I guess this would also provide a sort-of work around to the 30-day cooldown after deregistering, if you don't mind coming back as "Fluffy and John". I'm not sure what to do with it. I'd be okay with just letting it be; it's bad taste to exploit it just like it would be bad taste to pay 20 cents for a Mechanical Turk worker to publish an email giving you a white ribbon. -- Falsifian
