Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
If your reading is right, then, instead of the horrifying "take all by-announcement actions by making a public message", we get the slightly-less-horrifying "take any by-announcement action that you describe in a public message, even if you don't say that you perform the action.", since if you describe it in a public message, you have "clearly specified" it, and because of the broken definition of to "announce", you have "announced" that you perform it. Jason Cobb On 7/18/19 12:26 AM, nch wrote: 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!
Wait until you see how broken those rules are... On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 7:50 AM nch wrote: > > Speak for yourselves. I have a spaceship. > > On 7/18/19 9:41 AM, Rebecca wrote: > > ha when do we ever > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> On 7/17/2019 11:12 PM, Rebecca wrote: > >>> it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting > >>> attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics. > >> Well it's something to do right now when we don't *have* any other > >> game mechanics. > >> > >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
Speak for yourselves. I have a spaceship. On 7/18/19 9:41 AM, Rebecca wrote: ha when do we ever On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: On 7/17/2019 11:12 PM, Rebecca wrote: it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics. Well it's something to do right now when we don't *have* any other game mechanics.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
ha when do we ever On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 7/17/2019 11:12 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting > > attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics. > > Well it's something to do right now when we don't *have* any other > game mechanics. > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
On 7/17/2019 11:12 PM, Rebecca wrote: it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics. Well it's something to do right now when we don't *have* any other game mechanics.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
Historically Victory By Apathy has been a good way to bring activity back into the game during a lull. And the fact that it proves a testing ground for these kinds of claims makes it a sort of release valve. Jason Cobb could have tried other actions that would've caused more gamestate confusion. On 7/18/19 1:12 AM, Rebecca wrote: it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 4:11 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 15:24 +1000, Rebecca wrote: I create the following proposal Name: NO MORE APATHY AI: 1 Text: Repeal rule 2465 "Victory By Apathy" Huh? This incident is evidence that the rule is working by design. Assume for a thought experiment this case is broken. Then if we didn't have the Apathy rule, the brokenness would either go unreported, or else be used to break something more important than a victory condition. The whole point of the rule is that if something goes wrong in the dependent action rules, players use it to win rather than, e.g., force through a ratification of a false statement. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
Would you rather me have ratified that I had millions of coins? I could get a win that way, too. Jason Cobb On 7/18/19 2:12 AM, Rebecca wrote: it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 4:11 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 15:24 +1000, Rebecca wrote: I create the following proposal Name: NO MORE APATHY AI: 1 Text: Repeal rule 2465 "Victory By Apathy" Huh? This incident is evidence that the rule is working by design. Assume for a thought experiment this case is broken. Then if we didn't have the Apathy rule, the brokenness would either go unreported, or else be used to break something more important than a victory condition. The whole point of the rule is that if something goes wrong in the dependent action rules, players use it to win rather than, e.g., force through a ratification of a false statement. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 4:11 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 15:24 +1000, Rebecca wrote: > > I create the following proposal > > > > Name: NO MORE APATHY > > AI: 1 > > Text: Repeal rule 2465 "Victory By Apathy" > > Huh? This incident is evidence that the rule is working by design. > > Assume for a thought experiment this case is broken. Then if we didn't > have the Apathy rule, the brokenness would either go unreported, or > else be used to break something more important than a victory > condition. > > The whole point of the rule is that if something goes wrong in the > dependent action rules, players use it to win rather than, e.g., force > through a ratification of a false statement. > > -- > ais523 > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 15:24 +1000, Rebecca wrote: > I create the following proposal > > Name: NO MORE APATHY > AI: 1 > Text: Repeal rule 2465 "Victory By Apathy" Huh? This incident is evidence that the rule is working by design. Assume for a thought experiment this case is broken. Then if we didn't have the Apathy rule, the brokenness would either go unreported, or else be used to break something more important than a victory condition. The whole point of the rule is that if something goes wrong in the dependent action rules, players use it to win rather than, e.g., force through a ratification of a false statement. -- ais523
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Apathy
Support On Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 20:56 James Cook Apathy >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
I also wanted to test whether my statement of “I’m apathetic” was made at the right time. It was in the same message as the intent, so was it simultaneous with the intention? Or was it stated between “now” and the execution of the intent, as required by the intent? > On Dec 9, 2018, at 7:40 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yes, I guessed as much. Would have been interesting to CFJ. > > And if your attempt _hadn't_ succeeded, would Jacob Arduino's TTttPF have > counted? We may never know. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Monday, December 10, 2018 12:37 AM, Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Personally I was going to test (with that particular phrasing) whether >> merely quoting the original message counted. >> >>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, D. Margaux wrote: >>> >>> No, nothing specifically in mind about that. That’s just how my phone >>> renders quote marks for some reason. On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:19 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: Now that this has been defused: D. Margaux, did you have anything in mind about curved vs. straight quotes in mind with this? i.e., "I’m apathetic" working where "I'm apathetic" would not? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, December 6, 2018 6:20 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > Very clever. I'm sure one of the long-timers will object to it just on > principle, but I’m apathetic, at least! :) > (NB This is not Faking: I am actually extremely tired and lacking in > motivation this evening.) > -twg > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:13 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic. >> I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all players >> who, between now and the time of declaration, have sent a public message >> that includes the phrase, “I’m apathetic.” > >> I’m apathetic. -- D. Margaux > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
Yes, I guessed as much. Would have been interesting to CFJ. And if your attempt _hadn't_ succeeded, would Jacob Arduino's TTttPF have counted? We may never know. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, December 10, 2018 12:37 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Personally I was going to test (with that particular phrasing) whether > merely quoting the original message counted. > > On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, D. Margaux wrote: > > > No, nothing specifically in mind about that. That’s just how my phone > > renders quote marks for some reason. > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:19 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > > > Now that this has been defused: D. Margaux, did you have anything in mind > > > about curved vs. straight quotes in mind with this? i.e., "I’m apathetic" > > > working where "I'm apathetic" would not? > > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 6:20 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Very clever. I'm sure one of the long-timers will object to it just on > > > > principle, but I’m apathetic, at least! :) > > > > (NB This is not Faking: I am actually extremely tired and lacking in > > > > motivation this evening.) > > > > -twg > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:13 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic. > > > > > I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all players > > > > > who, between now and the time of declaration, have sent a public > > > > > message > > > > > that includes the phrase, “I’m apathetic.” > > > > > > > > > I’m apathetic. > > > > > > -- > > > D. Margaux
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
Personally I was going to test (with that particular phrasing) whether merely quoting the original message counted. On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, D. Margaux wrote: > No, nothing specifically in mind about that. That’s just how my phone > renders quote marks for some reason. > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:19 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > Now that this has been defused: D. Margaux, did you have anything in mind > > about curved vs. straight quotes in mind with this? i.e., "I’m apathetic" > > working where "I'm apathetic" would not? > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 6:20 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey > > wrote: > > > > > Very clever. I'm sure one of the long-timers will object to it just on > > principle, but I’m apathetic, at least! :) > > > > > > (NB This is not Faking: I am actually extremely tired and lacking in > > motivation this evening.) > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:13 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > > > Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic. > > > > I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all players > > who, between now and the time of declaration, have sent a public message > > that includes the phrase, “I’m apathetic.” > > > > I’m apathetic. > > > > > > -- > D. Margaux >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
No, nothing specifically in mind about that. That’s just how my phone renders quote marks for some reason. On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:19 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Now that this has been defused: D. Margaux, did you have anything in mind > about curved vs. straight quotes in mind with this? i.e., "I’m apathetic" > working where "I'm apathetic" would not? > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 6:20 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey > wrote: > > > Very clever. I'm sure one of the long-timers will object to it just on > principle, but I’m apathetic, at least! :) > > > > (NB This is not Faking: I am actually extremely tired and lacking in > motivation this evening.) > > > > -twg > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:13 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic. > > > I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all players > who, between now and the time of declaration, have sent a public message > that includes the phrase, “I’m apathetic.” > > > I’m apathetic. > > > -- D. Margaux
DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
Now that this has been defused: D. Margaux, did you have anything in mind about curved vs. straight quotes in mind with this? i.e., "I’m apathetic" working where "I'm apathetic" would not? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, December 6, 2018 6:20 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Very clever. I'm sure one of the long-timers will object to it just on > principle, but I’m apathetic, at least! :) > > (NB This is not Faking: I am actually extremely tired and lacking in > motivation this evening.) > > -twg > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:13 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic. > > I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all players who, > > between now and the time of declaration, have sent a public message that > > includes the phrase, “I’m apathetic.” > > I’m apathetic.
DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
On Thu, 2018-12-06 at 15:42 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > After that last batch of cheap wins, the Herald frowns menacingly... I'm still pretty surprised that nobody's actually objected. The name "Apathy" was intended more to be a mnemonic for the victory method, than an actual suggestion as to how it might be achieved... -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
I'm apathetic On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:33 AM Gaelan Steele wrote: > I’m apathetic, at least for now. > > Gaelan > > > On Dec 6, 2018, at 7:13 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic. > > > > I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all players who, > between now and the time of declaration, have sent a public message that > includes the phrase, “I’m apathetic.” > > > > I’m apathetic. > >
