ais523 wrote:
On Sun, 2022-03-06 at 19:13 +0000, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
On Mar 5, 2022, at 6:31 PM, nix via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
CFJ: Jason's purported apathy intent was sent to all players.
CFJ: Jason's purported apathy intent contained a "clear designation
of intent to be public.”
Grat.:
Rule 1728/43 requires a declaration of intent to "conspicuously and
without obfuscation [specify] the action [and] the method". In
editing eir Discord message, Jason went out of their way to make that
specification inconspicuous.
Gratuitous:
Rule 1728 makes it clear that tabling an intent is an action. It's
therefore either valid or invalid at the time it's performed.
Subsequent behaviour by the player after taking an action can't
retroactively change whether or not it was valid.
[snip]
A person CAN act on eir own behalf, by announcement, to table an
intent (syn. "intend") to perform a tabled action, conspicuously
and without obfuscation specifying the action, the method
(including non- default parameter values), and optionally,
conditions.
Here, the “specifying conspicuously” is something that the person
does. Considering the overall context of Jason’s actions (and there’s
nothing in the rules to imply we shouldn’t do that), I don’t think
anyone would argue that it was "specifying conspicuously”.
CFJ 3776 found that "[...] to allow future messages to retroactively
change the meaning of a past message would be totally antithetical to
the game's customs and best interests, allowing for example important
rule-defined mechanisms such as dependent actions to be bypassed
arbitrarily." So even if the rules are silent, there are three rule 217
tests counteracting this argument.
I still concur with the argument that merely sending it to a Discord
channel that I happen to have access to, without @-ing me or a group
that includes me, already fails to be "conspicuous", even before the
editing comes into play.
Also, CFJ 3776 (dating back to late 2019) pre-dates the Discord server
(which was apparently first suggested by nch in June 2020), and "future
message" is an inadequate description of editing the same message. This
brings up the old "technical domain of control" standard, though it's a
gray area compared to delaying an e-mail and editing it mid-stream (as
there was *some* opportunity, however limited, for others to observe the
pre-edited message directly).
