You had me with the video.
(Illustrating common legal uses of "declare" in context is far more
satisfactory/convincing IMO than the "capitalization = word loses its
basic meaning" approach).
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 9:26 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 7:33 AM D Margaux wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: D Margaux
> > Date: February 20, 2019 at 7:28:31 AM EST
> > To: Agora Business
> > Subject: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:56 PM, James Cook wrote:
> >
> > I initiate a Call for Judgement, specifying the statement: "Falsifian
> > and G won the game."
> >
> >
> > CFJ 3719. I assign it to myself.
> >
> > It reminds me of another, similar attempted declaration:
> > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EuZeff2y32M :-)
>
> Here are my initial proto-judgement, but I am definitely open to being
> persuaded otherwise:
>
> * * *
>
> Caller's arguement depends on the idea that to "Declare Apathy" means
> the same thing as to "announce" or "publish apathy." I don't
> necessarily agree with that, and so I would judge FALSE.
>
> The word declaration has several meanings. In the context of Rule
> 2465, I think "to Declare Apathy" is a kind of a speech-act: it is a
> statement that causes a particular social fact to come into existence
> (in this case, it creates a victory by Apathy). It has a similar form
> as when a wedding officiant says "I declare you man and wife," or when
> a monarch says "I declare war on [country]," or when the chair of a
> legislative body says "I declare that the legislative session is
> adjourned."
>
> In each of these examples, the declaration works only if certain
> preconditions are met. The wedding officiant must be vested with some
> legal, religious, or other kind of authority to perform the marriage,
> and the bride and groom need to express consent and have a valid
> marriage license--otherwise the declaration is void. The monarch must
> be vested with the power to declare war, and may lack authority to do
> so in a constitutional monarchy. The chair must actually be
> recognized as legitimately presiding over the legislative body, and
> certain rules typically must be followed before an adjournment can be
> declared.
>
> If authority is lacking, the declaration is void. So if I were to say
> (or announce or publish), "I declare Donald Trump and Hillary Rodham
> Clinton to be married," or "I declare war on BlogNomic on behalf of
> Agora," or "I declare the U.S. Congress to be adjourned," we would all
> immediately understand why the declarations are void.
>
> So too here. Under certain circumstances, Rule 2465 vests a player
> with authority to declare a particular social fact to come into
> existence--a victory by Apathy. The key question is under what
> circumstances does that Rule create authority to Declare Apathy? The
> Rule says that "[a] player CAN Declare Apathy without objection,
> specifying a set of players." In my view, "without objection" must be
> read as a precondition that must be satisfied before a player is
> vested with authority to Declare Apathy.
>
> So what does "without objection" mean? Well, Rule 1728 says that "a
> rule that purports to allow a person to perform an action [without
> objection] thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement"
> provided certain conditions are met. Here, those conditions are
> plainly not met (and not merely because dependent intents are
> currently temporarily broken). So, I think the declaration sadly must
> fail (which is regrettable because a TRUE judgement would also give me
> a win by Apathy from December 2018).
