Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:41 PM Rebecca wrote: > you absolutely can! we are not the typo police. Not that it matters, but it probably wasn't a typo. CFJ 1885 (called 26 Jan 2008): "AGAINT" is a variant spelling of "AGAINST", not a customary synonym for "FOR", despite its former private usage with the latter meaning.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
Sorry, still new at Assessor :), I'll fix that in my records. Jason Cobb On 7/18/19 1:40 AM, Rebecca wrote: you absolutely can! we are not the typo police. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:52 PM Jason Cobb wrote: I'm not sure that I can count this as AGAINST. You might want to withdraw and resubmit the ballot. Jason Cobb On 7/18/19 12:31 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: 8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect AGAINT
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
you absolutely can! we are not the typo police. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:52 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > I'm not sure that I can count this as AGAINST. You might want to > withdraw and resubmit the ballot. > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/18/19 12:31 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: > >> 8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect > > AGAINT > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3755 Assigned to Murphy
G. reassigned this CFJ to emself so its no longer yours to judge On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:37 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > > === CFJ 3755 > === > > > >The time window of R. Lee's Oath to vote against certain proposals > >is 60 days. > > > > > == > > > > Caller:Jason Cobb > > > > Judge: Murphy > > > > > == > > > > History: > > > > Called by Jason Cobb: 05 Jul 2019 17:42:21 > > Assigned to Murphy: [now] > > > > > == > > > > Caller's Arguments: > > The Oath does not explicitly state any time window, it instead says > > "for > > at least the next 30 days". The "at least" arguably prevents the "30 > > days" from being definite, thus the pledge does not "explicitly [state]" > > that its time window is any specific time window; it instead purports to > > be binding for any one of an infinite range of time windows. If my > > understanding is correct, then, under Rule 2450, the time window is 60 > > days, and this CFJ should be judged TRUE. > > > > > -- > > > > Caller's Evidence: > > > > Excerpt from Rule 2450: > > > > If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform > > (or refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the > > pledge within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of > > Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states > > otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the > > pledge explicitly states otherwise. > > > > R. Lee's Oath: > > > > I hereby swear an Oath to vote AGAINST any proposal that adds > > more text than it deletes for at least the next 30 days. > > > > > == > > I consider it reasonably clear that R. Lee's intent was "I swear to do X > for a 30-day window, I may or may not continue to do X afterward". If e > had explicitly fuzzed up the length of the window (e.g. "The time window > of this Oath is at least 30 days but may be longer"), then that would > have been different. > > FALSE. > > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
I'm not sure that I can count this as AGAINST. You might want to withdraw and resubmit the ballot. Jason Cobb On 7/18/19 12:31 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: 8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect AGAINT
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:18 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > I'll leave the CFJ up in hopes that it gets judged in a way that avoids > this whole mess (although I'm not sure that there's enough space to > bring in Rule 217 factors and get "best interests of the game"). Gratuitous: I get from my apartment to the grocery store by crossing the street. But it's not true that every time I cross that street I'm going from my apartment to the grocery store. Crossing the street is a *means* of getting to the grocery store, but not the entire definition of what it means to go to the grocery store. I'd also cite CFJ 2549: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2549
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
On 7/17/19 11:00 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: My interpretation is that you publish every possible string, including ones like "I cause Agora to murder BlogNomic.", but that it's not EFFECTIVE unless the Rules actually state that you can do it "by announcement" (or perhaps something like "publishing"). As for this part, my interpretation doesn't include any text being added. I interpret it as making every message sent to the public fora semantically equivalent to everything that can be done "by announcement" or "by publishing" in the rules. That's why I believe it only applies to things enumerated explicitly, and why it doesn't apply any special modifiers. In a narrower sense if a rule said "Every public message is also a pledge." That pledge would be related to whatever the text of the message was, not every possible pledge.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
On 7/17/19 9:37 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: Gratuitous: If this reading were correct, any public message would automatically take all by-announcement actions, including deregistering. I first thought that this is probably enough to trigger Rule 1698, so if this reading is correct, Rule 478 actually says something different (and it might take us a while to figure out what). I'm reasonably convinced that the last paragraph of R478 makes any unspecified "by announcement" fail, but this would still be true for all "by publishing". OTOH, I don't see how such a situation would amend rule 2034, which appears to provide a method of escaping from this particular deadlock (meaning that AIAN remains untriggered). We'd need to publish a message purporting to resolve a proposal that amends the rules and gamestate to a non-broken state, and then cease to send any public messages for a week (to be on the safe side; CoEs don't use "publish" or "announce" wording but other effects that might break the self-ratification might, and besides the rules may say something different from what we expect if we have this level of brokenness). The purported fix proposal would self-ratify as having happened, regardless of the actual gamestate. That said, I think this reading of rule 478 is not a natural one, and the wording elsewhere in the rule implies that it's incorrect, e.g. "Actions in messages (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear in the message, unless otherwise specified." It's one that's sufficiently disastrous if true that we may want to take corrective measures, though. (For example, if this interpretation /is/ true, Agora currently has exactly one player, and it may be very hard to determine who it is. Note that Apathy victories are only possible for players, so if the reasoning is correct, the victory very likely fails.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
You're right, this reading is disastrous for the gamestate. I'll leave the CFJ up in hopes that it gets judged in a way that avoids this whole mess (although I'm not sure that there's enough space to bring in Rule 217 factors and get "best interests of the game"). Jason Cobb On 7/17/19 10:37 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:19 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: 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. Gratuitous: If this reading were correct, any public message would automatically take all by-announcement actions, including deregistering. I first thought that this is probably enough to trigger Rule 1698, so if this reading is correct, Rule 478 actually says something different (and it might take us a while to figure out what). OTOH, I don't see how such a situation would amend rule 2034, which appears to provide a method of escaping from this particular deadlock (meaning that AIAN remains untriggered). We'd need to publish a message purporting to resolve a proposal that amends the rules and gamestate to a non-broken state, and then cease to send any public messages for a week (to be on the safe side; CoEs don't use "publish" or "announce" wording but other effects that might break the self-ratification might, and besides the rules may say something different from what we expect if we have this level of brokenness). The purported fix proposal would self-ratify as having happened, regardless of the actual gamestate. That said, I think this reading of rule 478 is not a natural one, and the wording elsewhere in the rule implies that it's incorrect, e.g. "Actions in messages (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear in the message, unless otherwise specified." It's one that's sufficiently disastrous if true that we may want to take corrective measures, though. (For example, if this interpretation /is/ true, Agora currently has exactly one player, and it may be very hard to determine who it is. Note that Apathy victories are only possible for players, so if the reasoning is correct, the victory very likely fails.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: reflectively cheap
If it helps, the thought I had in mind was: If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an action, that action is a fee-based action. The action of "destroying a coin" is certainly associated with a cost (destruction) of a set of assets - namely, a coin. Therefore, destroying a coin is a fee-based action. On 7/17/2019 7:58 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by the same person as completely fungible. -Aris On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:45 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 18:21 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: I pay a fee of one coin to destroy a coin. The coin you paid as part of the fee, or a different coin? The sentence is ambiguous in English. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
E has announced it but e has not done it by announcement, which the rules distinguish. It would be announced but still fail to be done. On 7/17/19 11:00 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: My interpretation is that you publish every possible string, including ones like "I cause Agora to murder BlogNomic.", but that it's not EFFECTIVE unless the Rules actually state that you can do it "by announcement" (or perhaps something like "publishing"). I do agree that some protection might be afforded by the phrase "by announcement", since I do agree that a person has not "clearly specif[ied]" the action, but I do still think that the person has "announc[ed] that e performs it". Jason Cobb On 7/17/19 11:52 PM, nch wrote: That's not my reading. The rules define "publishing" and "announcing". Only things that the rules then say happen "by publishing" and "by announcing" are influenced by that definition. I would* interpret it to mean that everything listed as "by announcement" or "by publishing" is done by every posted message. That doesn't include every possible string, just the ones enumerated in the rules. I added the * because I see another problem with this interpretation now, and it's here, in rule 478. Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. "clearly specifying" AND "announcing" reads to me that it's only successful if it's clearly specified. Weirdly this creates an asymmetry. Somethings in the rules are done "by announcement" and therefore need to be clear. Other things are done "by publishing" and therefore don't need to be. However, in this specific case, both your intent and your resolution have to have been clearly specified AND announced. To summarize: If the rules say "by publishing", and no other conditions, then that condition is met with every message (under your interpretation). If the rules say "by announcement", it needs to be clearly specified what you're announcing. On 7/17/19 10:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: 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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
My interpretation is that you publish every possible string, including ones like "I cause Agora to murder BlogNomic.", but that it's not EFFECTIVE unless the Rules actually state that you can do it "by announcement" (or perhaps something like "publishing"). I do agree that some protection might be afforded by the phrase "by announcement", since I do agree that a person has not "clearly specif[ied]" the action, but I do still think that the person has "announc[ed] that e performs it". Jason Cobb On 7/17/19 11:52 PM, nch wrote: That's not my reading. The rules define "publishing" and "announcing". Only things that the rules then say happen "by publishing" and "by announcing" are influenced by that definition. I would* interpret it to mean that everything listed as "by announcement" or "by publishing" is done by every posted message. That doesn't include every possible string, just the ones enumerated in the rules. I added the * because I see another problem with this interpretation now, and it's here, in rule 478. Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. "clearly specifying" AND "announcing" reads to me that it's only successful if it's clearly specified. Weirdly this creates an asymmetry. Somethings in the rules are done "by announcement" and therefore need to be clear. Other things are done "by publishing" and therefore don't need to be. However, in this specific case, both your intent and your resolution have to have been clearly specified AND announced. To summarize: If the rules say "by publishing", and no other conditions, then that condition is met with every message (under your interpretation). If the rules say "by announcement", it needs to be clearly specified what you're announcing. On 7/17/19 10:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: 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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
That's not my reading. The rules define "publishing" and "announcing". Only things that the rules then say happen "by publishing" and "by announcing" are influenced by that definition. I would* interpret it to mean that everything listed as "by announcement" or "by publishing" is done by every posted message. That doesn't include every possible string, just the ones enumerated in the rules. I added the * because I see another problem with this interpretation now, and it's here, in rule 478. Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. "clearly specifying" AND "announcing" reads to me that it's only successful if it's clearly specified. Weirdly this creates an asymmetry. Somethings in the rules are done "by announcement" and therefore need to be clear. Other things are done "by publishing" and therefore don't need to be. However, in this specific case, both your intent and your resolution have to have been clearly specified AND announced. To summarize: If the rules say "by publishing", and no other conditions, then that condition is met with every message (under your interpretation). If the rules say "by announcement", it needs to be clearly specified what you're announcing. On 7/17/19 10:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: 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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
I'll amend that: except that if I was claiming to publish a message with the text "lowercase" that was all caps, then I wouldn't argue that I had published that, but as for something being conspicuous, there is text that would be conspicuous, so I would argue that I did publish that. Jason Cobb On 7/17/19 11:23 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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: reflectively cheap
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:08 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < > ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:58 -0400, Aris Merchant wrote: >> > It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by >> > the same person as completely fungible. >> >> The two readings lead to different outcomes: "I pay a fee of 1 coin, >> the reason to do this was so that the coin I paid would be destroyed"; >> "I pay a fee of 1 coin, when I do that it causes a coin to be >> destroyed, meaning that I'm now down two coins". >> >> I suspect only one of these readings is a possible action under the >> Rules, but they both seem to fit the standard English meaning of the >> words. >> >> -- >> ais523 >> >> Oh, fair point. I hadn’t considered that one might pay a fee to destroy a > different coin. Sorry for missing that. > > -Aris > Which, incidentally, is extremely embarrassing, because that’s exactly what you suggested might be happening. Note to self: don’t try to do Agora while jet-lagged. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: reflectively cheap
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:58 -0400, Aris Merchant wrote: > > It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by > > the same person as completely fungible. > > The two readings lead to different outcomes: "I pay a fee of 1 coin, > the reason to do this was so that the coin I paid would be destroyed"; > "I pay a fee of 1 coin, when I do that it causes a coin to be > destroyed, meaning that I'm now down two coins". > > I suspect only one of these readings is a possible action under the > Rules, but they both seem to fit the standard English meaning of the > words. > > -- > ais523 > > Oh, fair point. I hadn’t considered that one might pay a fee to destroy a different coin. Sorry for missing that. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: reflectively cheap
On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:58 -0400, Aris Merchant wrote: > It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by > the same person as completely fungible. The two readings lead to different outcomes: "I pay a fee of 1 coin, the reason to do this was so that the coin I paid would be destroyed"; "I pay a fee of 1 coin, when I do that it causes a coin to be destroyed, meaning that I'm now down two coins". I suspect only one of these readings is a possible action under the Rules, but they both seem to fit the standard English meaning of the words. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: reflectively cheap
It doesn’t matter; the rules define instances of a currency owned by the same person as completely fungible. -Aris On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:45 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 18:21 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I pay a fee of one coin to destroy a coin. > > The coin you paid as part of the fee, or a different coin? The sentence > is ambiguous in English. > > -- > ais523 > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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 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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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.
DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 22:19 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > 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. Gratuitous: If this reading were correct, any public message would automatically take all by-announcement actions, including deregistering. I first thought that this is probably enough to trigger Rule 1698, so if this reading is correct, Rule 478 actually says something different (and it might take us a while to figure out what). OTOH, I don't see how such a situation would amend rule 2034, which appears to provide a method of escaping from this particular deadlock (meaning that AIAN remains untriggered). We'd need to publish a message purporting to resolve a proposal that amends the rules and gamestate to a non-broken state, and then cease to send any public messages for a week (to be on the safe side; CoEs don't use "publish" or "announce" wording but other effects that might break the self-ratification might, and besides the rules may say something different from what we expect if we have this level of brokenness). The purported fix proposal would self-ratify as having happened, regardless of the actual gamestate. That said, I think this reading of rule 478 is not a natural one, and the wording elsewhere in the rule implies that it's incorrect, e.g. "Actions in messages (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear in the message, unless otherwise specified." It's one that's sufficiently disastrous if true that we may want to take corrective measures, though. (For example, if this interpretation /is/ true, Agora currently has exactly one player, and it may be very hard to determine who it is. Note that Apathy victories are only possible for players, so if the reasoning is correct, the victory very likely fails.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
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.
DIS: Re: BUS: reflectively cheap
On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 18:21 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I pay a fee of one coin to destroy a coin. The coin you paid as part of the fee, or a different coin? The sentence is ambiguous in English. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3755 Assigned to Murphy
Oh, I missed the R991 part.
I was looking at this in R2492:
When a judge recuses emself from a CFJ, then
* the CFJ becomes unassigned;
If the R991 text didn't exist, then R2492 would define
what "recuse" means, but it's specific recusing oneself
whereas here in R591 what's used is "remove":
the
Arbitor CAN remove em from being the judge of that case by
announcement
I was actually fairly certain that "Recuse" was a synonym for
"remove from case" based on common usage anyway, I was just being over-
cautious.
Anyhow, there's definitely room to condense some text between
the 3 rules, working on it...
On 7/17/2019 3:45 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Why so?
Rule 991 ("Calls for Judgement"):
To "remove" or "recuse" a person from a being the judge of a CFJ is to
flip that CFJ's judge from that person to unassigned.
(although it looks like there's a typo in there)
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 6:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Hmm, the term "recuse" looks like it only applies to self-removal
(something to fix).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3755 Assigned to Murphy
Why so?
Rule 991 ("Calls for Judgement"):
To "remove" or "recuse" a person from a being the judge of a CFJ is to flip
that CFJ's judge from that person to unassigned.
(although it looks like there's a typo in there)
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 6:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Hmm, the term "recuse" looks like it only applies to self-removal
(something to fix).
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Voting
Arguments for TRUE:
This phrase is the crux of the discussion, bracketing the relevant
clause: "as determined [by the voting method]."
Jason Cobb's arguments assume that [by the voting method] specifies an
agent, in the same way as one might say "The defendant is found guilty
[by the court]." But I think a more likely interpretation is that it
specifies an instrument, in the same way one might say "The court made
its decision [by examining the evidence at hand.]" The evidence itself
does not make the decision, but the decision is implied to be justified
by the evidence.
In the same way, the valid options are those that are justified by the
chosen method. Valid options for a chosen method are explicitly listed
in the rules, so there's no ambiguity about what those options are.
On 7/17/19 12:52 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Okay, I think "submit" is the wrong word there, so I retract my
previously submitted CFJ.
I CFJ: "It is possible to publish a notice that satisfies condition 4
of Rule 683."
Evidence
Excerpt from Rule 683 ("Voting on Agoran Decisions"):
An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by
publishing a notice satisfying the following conditions:
1. The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
decision.
2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
initiation of the decision, a player.
3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.
4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as
determined by the voting method.
5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to
place the identified vote.
6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same decision.
Excerpt from Rule 2528 ("Voting Methods"):
The valid votes on an Agoran decision are:
1. PRESENT;
2. The valid conditional votes, as defined by rules of
power at least that of this rule; and
3. For an instant runoff decision, the ordered lists of
entities.
4. For any other decision, the valid options.
Arguments
For a player to submit a ballot, the purported ballot must
"clearly identif[y] a valid vote, as determined by the voting
method." My reading is that, for this condition to be satisfied,
the vote that the ballot purports to cast must be a vote that is
an element of the set of "valid votes" that the voting method
determines. That is, the "by" describes an agent, since it
obviously does not create a method (it is not possible to
perform "the voting method", since it is not an action).
If Rule 683 were to instead read "as determined by Rule 2528",
then that would work fine, since Rule 2528 is a textual entity,
and is thus capable of determining the value of the set of valid
votes (in this case, Rule 2528 does so by explicitly stating
what the valid votes are, thus making a determination).
However, in its current wording, Rule 683 makes it incumbent
upon the voting method itself to determine the valid options.
Since no voting method actually does this, there is no possible
element of the set of "valid votes, as determined by the voting
method" that can be used to satisfy condition 4. I argue that
this CFJ should be judged FALSE.
