On Sun, 2025-10-26 at 09:26 -0700, Automaticat via agora-discussion wrote: > On October 26, 2025 1:22:58 AM PDT, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion > <[email protected]> wrote: > > If you can tell what the "encoded" text means at a glance, i think the > > community will be fine and perhaps even benefit from the flexibility of > > allowing it. Full-on ciphers can still be disallowed while allowing "codes" > > that only take a few seconds to parse. > > > > I suggest you self-file a Motion to Reconsider this judgement, though I'd > > like to hear if anyone else agrees or disagrees with these arguments. > > I agree with these arguments entirely. I believe that a reasonable > agoran coule read the text as it was intended to be read without even > needing to decode - it just looks like the text.
FWIW, I think I'm leaning towards agreeing with the judgement as submitted (and disagreeing with the older precedent): the rule cares about whether the text was obfuscated or not, and inessential obfuscation is still obfuscation. (A good way to think about it is to flip the requirement around: if the rule had said that the intent succeeds only if it *is* obfuscated, I think that this sort of trivial obfuscation would be a good way to comply with that requirement.) I don't think this sort of obfuscation prevents an action by announcement succeeding, but intents have an additional non-obfuscation requirement on top of that. -- ais523
