Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
This provision is clearly intended to be a long-term protection against
rule abuse. In such cases, it seems reasonable to interpret the
meticulous wording as an added safety in case of new rule changes, without
any implications following from whether or not the phrasing is redundant
given the _current_ ruleset.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I understand and agree with your logic (and, incidentally, would find it
hilarious if this made me guilty of Masterminding Being a Bad Space
Captain), but I have a brief question that occurred to me yesterday
about Rule 2519, which says:
A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action.
This seems to imply that it is possible for someone to act on behalf of
someone else to "publicly state" something, and explicitly excludes that
ability. This is almost the same as the language used in the Ribbons
rule ("publicly acknowledged the fact [that it is Agora's Birthday]").
Does this mean that the "acting as emself" clause in R2519 is simply
unnecessary? Or is "stating" something different from "sending a message
that states" something?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
On 1/20/2019 10:19 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I understand and agree with your logic (and, incidentally, would find it > hilarious if this made me guilty of Masterminding Being a Bad Space > Captain), but I have a brief question that occurred to me yesterday about > Rule 2519, which says: > > > > A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e,acting > > as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. > > This seems to imply that it is possible for someone to act on behalf of > someone else to "publicly state" something, and explicitly excludes that > ability. There's a history here (independent evolution of different protections) but, given that R2466 comes before R2519 in precedence, I would parse the net effect as "you can't send a message on behalf of someone else (R2466), moreover even if you could do so, you couldn't use that to make the person consent to something (R2519)."
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
I understand and agree with your logic (and, incidentally, would find it
hilarious if this made me guilty of Masterminding Being a Bad Space Captain),
but I have a brief question that occurred to me yesterday about Rule 2519,
which says:
A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action.
This seems to imply that it is possible for someone to act on behalf of someone
else to "publicly state" something, and explicitly excludes that ability. This
is almost the same as the language used in the Ribbons rule ("publicly
acknowledged the fact [that it is Agora's Birthday]").
Does this mean that the "acting as emself" clause in R2519 is simply
unnecessary? Or is "stating" something different from "sending a message that
states" something?
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 7:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 1/16/2019 5:37 AM, D. Margaux wrote:>
>
> > > On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > > If the original attempt failed at all, I would have expected it to be
>
> > > because of R2466's prohibition of sending-messages-on-behalf. I realise
>
> > > that contradicts CFJ 3649 but to be honest I'm not 100% certain, in
>
> > > hindsight, that that judgement was correct anyway.
>
> >
>
> > I agree that CFJ 3649 is poorly reasoned and probably shouldn’t be
>
> > followed. It’s not obvious that the judge of that CFJ knew of the
>
> > prohibition against sending messages when “acting on behalf.”
>
> I remember disagreeing with 3649 it at the time, can't remember if I
> attempted to file a Motion or just discussed it a bit and let it pass. In
> any case, here's my take on Tenhigitsune's case (proto-judgement):
>
> tl;dr you can't "communicate to" someone on behalf of a zombie because you
> can't send messages on their behalf.
>
> In general, in Agora, we abstract a lot of things (real currencies become
> virtual currencies, etc.) However, we are grounded in some baseline
> realities. Of course, some of those "realities", such as whether free will
> exists, are deep philosophical questions - over time, Agora has built up
> some precedents around those.
>
> One such precedent is in CFJ 1895 (a discussion of free will and
> Aristotelian causality). This found that a "baseline axiom" in Agora is
> that the game is played by discrete, identifiable agents of free will -
> i.e. "natural persons". The assumption is that "personhood" is absolute -
> you can create a legal construct that accepts one person's actions on
> behalf of another, but the agent never "becomes" the other person.
>
> This fundamental assumption extents to the concept of "knowledge". Because
> each person's knowledge is fundamentally independent, an actor cannot "pass
> on a principal's knowledge" (i.e. "communicate to") a third party. Again,
> we could put in Rules-language to create a legal fiction that allows it,
> but such communication cannot happen naturally.
>
> Currently, the R2466 explicitly forbids the legal fiction that an actor can
> act on behalf of a principal to "send a message". While the context of
> "send a message" is generally "send an email", in this case it should be
> taken colloquially and broadly - one can "send a message" in a variety of
> ways. So in the broader context, "sending a message" is simply to
> "communicate" to someone, whether via email, in-person, or a horse's head
> in someone's bed.
>
> So an actor cannot communicate with anyone on-behalf-of a principal. In
> R2466 this is explicit, but even without the prohibition in R2466, it is
> impossible: as per CFJ 1895 "Every assumed act of free will can be traced
> to a particular person's desire. Thus, as final cause and intention, this
> intention, and free will is, also non-transferable, in the most fundamental
> sense." The "act of communicating" is fundamentally an act of free will,
> an act traceable to a particular person's desire. And that person is the
> actor, not the principal[].
> The Rule "Space Battles" states that a certain action is accomplished by
> communicating to another party - the communication is the action. The Rule
> is Power-1. R2466 is power-3, so this trumps any ability that might be
> implied in lower-powered rules, and as discussed above, there's no
> "natural" ability for an actor to communicate on behalf of a principal[**].
> Therefore, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another to communicate the
> required information.
> [] This is specific to cases where the actor "originated" the originalthought
> (i.e. the origin of the message was the actor's free will, not the
> principal's). For example, if the Principal (of eir own accord) sends a
> message to a private party, and the private party forwards the message to a
> forum, it's possible to find that the Principal communicated with the forum
> "via the private party". But this is only true if the Principal, as an
> agent of free
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
On 1/16/2019 5:37 AM, D. Margaux wrote:> >> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> If the original attempt failed at all, I would have expected it to be >> because of R2466's prohibition of sending-messages-on-behalf. I realise >> that contradicts CFJ 3649 but to be honest I'm not 100% certain, in >> hindsight, that that judgement was correct anyway. > > I agree that CFJ 3649 is poorly reasoned and probably shouldn’t be > followed. It’s not obvious that the judge of that CFJ knew of the > prohibition against sending messages when “acting on behalf.” I remember disagreeing with 3649 it at the time, can't remember if I attempted to file a Motion or just discussed it a bit and let it pass. In any case, here's my take on Tenhigitsune's case (proto-judgement): tl;dr you can't "communicate to" someone on behalf of a zombie because you can't send messages on their behalf. In general, in Agora, we abstract a lot of things (real currencies become virtual currencies, etc.) However, we are grounded in some baseline realities. Of course, some of those "realities", such as whether free will exists, are deep philosophical questions - over time, Agora has built up some precedents around those. One such precedent is in CFJ 1895 (a discussion of free will and Aristotelian causality). This found that a "baseline axiom" in Agora is that the game is played by discrete, identifiable agents of free will - i.e. "natural persons". The assumption is that "personhood" is absolute - you can create a legal construct that accepts one person's actions on behalf of another, but the agent never "becomes" the other person. This fundamental assumption extents to the concept of "knowledge". Because each person's knowledge is fundamentally independent, an actor cannot "pass on a principal's knowledge" (i.e. "communicate to") a third party. Again, we could put in Rules-language to create a legal fiction that allows it, but such communication cannot happen naturally. Currently, the R2466 explicitly forbids the legal fiction that an actor can act on behalf of a principal to "send a message". While the context of "send a message" is generally "send an email", in this case it should be taken colloquially and broadly - one can "send a message" in a variety of ways. So in the broader context, "sending a message" is simply to "communicate" to someone, whether via email, in-person, or a horse's head in someone's bed. So an actor cannot communicate with anyone on-behalf-of a principal. In R2466 this is explicit, but even without the prohibition in R2466, it is impossible: as per CFJ 1895 "Every assumed act of free will can be traced to a particular person's desire. Thus, as final cause and intention, this intention, and free will is, also non-transferable, in the most fundamental sense." The "act of communicating" is fundamentally an act of free will, an act traceable to a particular person's desire. And that person is the actor, not the principal[*]. The Rule "Space Battles" states that a certain action is accomplished by communicating to another party - the communication is the action. The Rule is Power-1. R2466 is power-3, so this trumps any ability that might be implied in lower-powered rules, and as discussed above, there's no "natural" ability for an actor to communicate on behalf of a principal[**]. Therefore, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another to communicate the required information. [*] This is specific to cases where the actor "originated" the original thought (i.e. the origin of the message was the actor's free will, not the principal's). For example, if the Principal (of eir own accord) sends a message to a private party, and the private party forwards the message to a forum, it's possible to find that the Principal communicated with the forum "via the private party". But this is only true if the Principal, as an agent of free will, originated the content of the message. [**] This discussion of what may happen "naturally" is necessary because it's physically impossible to block two free agents from communicating: a rule that says "two people CANNOT communicate about X" would have no meaning when the two people actually did so, which is why we use SHALL NOT to control acts of communication between free agents. So if R2466 were purporting to invalidate communications between free agents, it would fail due to physical reality.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
On 1/16/2019 5:37 AM, D. Margaux wrote:> >> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> Hold on, isn't that exactly what happened here? "rau" is effectively (if >> we strip away all the fluff about constructed languages, which was a fun >> excuse but isn't really relevant) a secret code devised for communication >> between the resolver (me) and the person who first used it in a public >> message (coincidentally, also me). Thanks for clarifying the issue twg - I was treating it generically, and didn't look closely enough about who was purporting to communicate with whom. Will reconsider. > I think this is different. If you said, “I communicated a number to > myself, on pain of no faking,” I think that would maybe be valid. But as I > understood it, you said “the number is rau,” with rau being a word in a > private language that seemingly has no fixed meaning to translate into > English. So I think that’s the same as no choice all. Well, there's a balance to be struck between accepting a person's word always, and requiring, as a general principle, some kind of standards of evidence so a person in this situation doesn't have a consistent advantage/ temptation. In the past, a couple times, I remember sending a "private email to myself" to timestamp a private game-affecting transaction. I don't like requiring such things for the same reason I don't like requiring random dice rolls to be verifiable, but maybe in this situation the court should impose such requirements. Hopefully that would be temporary, the best solution would be to legislatively remove situations where "communicating to oneself" (even through proxies) is a valid and legal move.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Hold on, isn't that exactly what happened here? "rau" is effectively (if we > strip away all the fluff about constructed languages, which was a fun excuse > but isn't really relevant) a secret code devised for communication between > the resolver (me) and the person who first used it in a public message > (coincidentally, also me). I think this is different. If you said, “I communicated a number to myself, on pain of no faking,” I think that would maybe be valid. But as I understood it, you said “the number is rau,” with rau being a word in a private language that seemingly has no fixed meaning to translate into English. So I think that’s the same as no choice all. > > If the original attempt failed at all, I would have expected it to be because > of R2466's prohibition of sending-messages-on-behalf. I realise that > contradicts CFJ 3649 but to be honest I'm not 100% certain, in hindsight, > that that judgement was correct anyway. I agree that CFJ 3649 is poorly reasoned and probably shouldn’t be followed. It’s not obvious that the judge of that CFJ knew of the prohibition against sending messages when “acting on behalf.”
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 12:48 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Of course, if one of the Agorans is possessed of private information (e.g. a > code arranged with the resolver ahead of time, that e understands), this is > trivial to arrange, as it becomes "a typical Agoran with information X > understands X, something that a typical Agoran without information X doesn't > understand". Which makes perfect sense. Hold on, isn't that exactly what happened here? "rau" is effectively (if we strip away all the fluff about constructed languages, which was a fun excuse but isn't really relevant) a secret code devised for communication between the resolver (me) and the person who first used it in a public message (coincidentally, also me). If the original attempt failed at all, I would have expected it to be because of R2466's prohibition of sending-messages-on-behalf. I realise that contradicts CFJ 3649 but to be honest I'm not 100% certain, in hindsight, that that judgement was correct anyway. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include "quang" and "spaaace".) Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to. This discussion makes me even more doubtful about the recent usage of "quang" BTW, except in those messages that also quote its definition. Before all the mention of typical Agorans I thought it would probably be OK as long as you were the relevant recordkeepor, but now I'm not so sure. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
Proto-judgement: The exact CFJ statement does not extend the quote far enough. The full text is: > SHALL each once communicate to the resolver the amount > of Energy they wish to spend in the battle, via any method that > cannot be understood by the other combatant until e has also > fulfilled this obligation. The "via any method that cannot be understood" is part of the SHALL requirement. So the requirement is fulfilled when a combatant communicates to the resolver, without being understood by the other combatant. Now, to communicate is to be understood; that is, common use of the term includes the notion that information is successfully imparted, and if understanding is not actually received, communication did not occur (example use: "what we have here, is a failure to communicate.") So: the combatant must be understood by the resolver, without being understood by the other combatant. No one can ever be sure that anyone else truly "understands" something, but we can use the standard of what a "typical current Agoran" might understand. So the communication must be made via a method that a typical Agoran would understand, but a different typical Agoran wouldn't understand. Clearly, this is impossible if the method uses public information for all communication on the matter. To use the "typical" Agoran as a standard is to assume that both parties, given the same public information, would come to the same understanding. If a hash (or "secret language") is used, then when the hash is first published, neither party understands/has been communicated to. When the translation is published, both parties understand. There is never a time when one of the typical Agorans understands, but not the other. Of course, if one of the Agorans is possessed of private information (e.g. a code arranged with the resolver ahead of time, that e understands), this is trivial to arrange, as it becomes "a typical Agoran with information X understands X, something that a typical Agoran without information X doesn't understand". Which makes perfect sense. But under the assumption that the method of communication is entirely conducted in public, FALSE: these conditions are never met. On 1/15/2019 4:05 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I assign these CFJs to G. On Jan 15, 2019, at 6:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Favor, I can do it pretty quickly (but if anyone else is really keen I'm cool with that too). On 1/15/2019 3:52 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 11:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote: instead, all that is required for successful communication is that you evaluate the meaning of the signs and symbols I convey to you in their full social context. That does make sense, I guess. I'd prefer some independent verification, though. I CFJ, barring D. Margaux: "Tenhigitsune has fulfilled eir obligation, detailed in the rule entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to the resolver the amount of Energy [e wishes] to spend" in Space Battle 0001." I CFJ, barring D. Margaux: "D. Margaux has fulfilled eir obligation, detailed in the rule entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to the resolver the amount of Energy [e wishes] to spend" in Space Battle 0001." Of course, "in their full social context" is the important part. It would probably have been helpful if I'd mentioned this before now, but twgese is actually a cpizdacinsebangu - a language in which some words have different meanings when spoken by a kolmba (such as you) or a tcacpi (such as me or Tenhigitsune). I think it would be a mistake for me to explain in any further detail the English meaning(s) of "rau" until those CFJs have been resolved. Don't want to make it even easier for people to pin a Class-5 Crime on me! -twg PS: As fun as this is, I am pretty sure both CFJs are FALSE for the reasons G. and ais523 have been outlining. But it doesn't hurt to make sure. PPS: I am going to bed now, so please don't expect a prompt reply if you respond further.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
Here’s a thought experiment to sharpen the point. Imagine that I don’t know any Spanish at all, but I’ve been told that “uno” is a number in that language (but not which number it is). I then give the message, “I spend uno energy.” If twg speaks Spanish and knows that word, then have I communicated to him a choice of energy expenditure here? I think yes: the communicative content of the message does not depend on my internal mental state, but instead upon the signs that I am transmitting in broader social context, which is one where “uno” definitely means “one” (even if I don’t know that myself). Or what if I am told that -e^(i * pi) is a positive integer, but don’t know which one it is and refuse to google it. Do I communicate a valid choice if I tell twg that I choose -e^(i * pi)? If “rau” signifies a number in a legitimate language that twg understands (twgese), then my election of rau+1 should work in the same way as “uno” and “e^(i * pi)” do in the above hypotheticals. However, I think that “rau” actually doesn’t signify a number in any language (because private languages are impossible), and so twg didn’t actually communicate a number when e sent eir message and my election of rau+1 also doesn’t work. > On Jan 15, 2019, at 6:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > >> On Jan 15, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> Actually, at the time you posted the quoted message, "rau" meant "a pigeon >> or dove", so your statement is clearly incorrect. twgese is, after all, an >> evolving language - the meanings of words change all the time. > > I apologize, I should have been more precise. > > I spend rau + 1 energy, but I use the word “rau” in this context in an > anachronistic sense to mean what “rau” meant in twgese at the time you sent > your first message with the word “rau.” Hope this clarifies things. :-) > >> Also, I think your attempt to announce the Energy you will spend fails, >> because I have no idea what you thought "rau" meant, so your message did not >> communicate that information to me. > > I don’t think this is quite right. You can never know precisely what I think > anything means, because you can’t perceive directly into my mind. > Accordingly, it cannot be a precondition to successful communication that you > must know my private mental meanings if any (because that could never be > satisfied). Instead, what you can perceive are the signs and symbols that I > convey to you; and those signs and symbols are imbued with meaning by their > history of usage by a community of language speakers/writers. So you don’t > need to know what (if anything) I “thought rau meant” in my mind; instead, > all that is required for successful communication is that you evaluate the > meaning of the signs and symbols I convey to you in their full social context. > > Here, evidently, rau is a twgese word that had a particular meaning that you > yourself know at the time you first used it. So that’s what I’ve communicated > to you in my message. :-) > > [[As a more serious aside, I think the logic I’m laying out in this email is > essentially the reason why the later Wittgenstein demonstrated that private > languages such as twgese are impossible. So actually “rau” has no meaning in > either of our emails. But it’s been a long time since I had to think about > Wittgenstein, so I may have garbled the logic of it.]]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
> On Jan 15, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Actually, at the time you posted the quoted message, "rau" meant "a pigeon or > dove", so your statement is clearly incorrect. twgese is, after all, an > evolving language - the meanings of words change all the time. I apologize, I should have been more precise. I spend rau + 1 energy, but I use the word “rau” in this context in an anachronistic sense to mean what “rau” meant in twgese at the time you sent your first message with the word “rau.” Hope this clarifies things. :-) > Also, I think your attempt to announce the Energy you will spend fails, > because I have no idea what you thought "rau" meant, so your message did not > communicate that information to me. I don’t think this is quite right. You can never know precisely what I think anything means, because you can’t perceive directly into my mind. Accordingly, it cannot be a precondition to successful communication that you must know my private mental meanings if any (because that could never be satisfied). Instead, what you can perceive are the signs and symbols that I convey to you; and those signs and symbols are imbued with meaning by their history of usage by a community of language speakers/writers. So you don’t need to know what (if anything) I “thought rau meant” in my mind; instead, all that is required for successful communication is that you evaluate the meaning of the signs and symbols I convey to you in their full social context. Here, evidently, rau is a twgese word that had a particular meaning that you yourself know at the time you first used it. So that’s what I’ve communicated to you in my message. :-) [[As a more serious aside, I think the logic I’m laying out in this email is essentially the reason why the later Wittgenstein demonstrated that private languages such as twgese are impossible. So actually “rau” has no meaning in either of our emails. But it’s been a long time since I had to think about Wittgenstein, so I may have garbled the logic of it.]]
DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 10:24 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I cause L to point eir finger at twg for violating special relativity. In > particular, twg is the resolver, and in eir message e “reveal[ed] the Energy > a combatant is spending before both combatants have made their decisions” > (i.e., e revealed that Tenhigitsune is spending rau energy). Actually, at the time you posted the quoted message, "rau" meant "a pigeon or dove", so your statement is clearly incorrect. twgese is, after all, an evolving language - the meanings of words change all the time. I'm minded to declare your Finger Pointing Shenanigans unless somebody presents a convincing alternative argument. Also, I think your attempt to announce the Energy you will spend fails, because I have no idea what you thought "rau" meant, so your message did not communicate that information to me. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
Actually, this really convinces me that this rule makes it impossible (in a real sense) to play with public announcements (hashes etc). Because it's impossible to "communicate with the resolver" in a manner that "cannot be understood" by the other combatant. If the communication relies solely on publicly-available information (hashes etc.), there's no part of the process where the resolver and combatant can have different information. (of course, as pointed out, the private communication with the resolver works fine). On 1/15/2019 1:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Actually, I don't think this is the same scenario. twgese is just a mechanism for ensuring that the value of the number Tenhigitsune has announced is unknown to D. Margaux; the nature of the action that is being taken is perfectly cromulent to everybody. (Unless it fails for another reason.) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:55 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Oh gosh, that's brilliant. I wish I'd known about it, I'd have reused the word. I have no idea what its implications are for this, though. Case law makes everything more complicated. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:22 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include "quang" and "spaaace") Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to. I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for "nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk". (It's not a very commonly used word, after all!) ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
There's a fairly established set of decisions that says public communication has to be intelligible to "a typical Agoran" and not just a single Agoran - that's the AGAINT precedents, arguably more famous than nkep. History of AGAINT: Someone privately communicated with the Assessor ahead of voting to say "when I vote AGAINT, it's a vote FOR." Everyone not in the know assumed it was a typo and a clear vote AGAINST. Result: using a private language/code doesn't work, it either fails entirely or has the assumed typo meaning (depending on context). On 1/15/2019 1:45 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I see your Rule 2466/1 and raise you CFJ 3649. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:41 PM, D. Margaux wrote: On Jan 15, 2019, at 4:18 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include "quang" and "spaaace".) Our emails crossed just now—interesting idea! I have no idea how this resolves. One reason this might not work is that the rule requires Tenhigitsune to “communicate” eir choice, and Rule 2466 prohibits you from acting on behalf of em to send a “message” (or synonymously, to “publish” something). The only thing you can do is take the underlying game action on eir behalf—but here there seems to be no action separate from the very act of sending a message (i.e., “communicat[ing]”).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
Actually, I don't think this is the same scenario. twgese is just a mechanism for ensuring that the value of the number Tenhigitsune has announced is unknown to D. Margaux; the nature of the action that is being taken is perfectly cromulent to everybody. (Unless it fails for another reason.) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:55 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Oh gosh, that's brilliant. I wish I'd known about it, I'd have reused the > word. > > I have no idea what its implications are for this, though. Case law makes > everything more complicated. > > -twg > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:22 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk > ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > > > On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau > > > Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which > > > is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include > > > "quang" and "spaaace") > > > Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to. > > > > I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for > > "nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk". > > (It's not a very commonly used word, after all!) > > > > ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
Oh gosh, that's brilliant. I wish I'd known about it, I'd have reused the word. I have no idea what its implications are for this, though. Case law makes everything more complicated. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:22 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau > > Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which > > is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include > > "quang" and "spaaace") > > Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to. > > I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for > "nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk". > (It's not a very commonly used word, after all!) > > > > ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
I see your Rule 2466/1 and raise you CFJ 3649. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:41 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Jan 15, 2019, at 4:18 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau Energy in > > Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is a constructed > > language invented by me. (Other twgese words include "quang" and "spaaace".) > > Our emails crossed just now—interesting idea! > > I have no idea how this resolves. > > One reason this might not work is that the rule requires Tenhigitsune to > “communicate” eir choice, and Rule 2466 prohibits you from acting on behalf > of em to send a “message” (or synonymously, to “publish” something). The only > thing you can do is take the underlying game action on eir behalf—but here > there seems to be no action separate from the very act of sending a message > (i.e., “communicat[ing]”).
DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
> On Jan 15, 2019, at 4:18 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau Energy in > Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is a constructed > language invented by me. (Other twgese words include "quang" and "spaaace".) > Our emails crossed just now—interesting idea! I have no idea how this resolves. One reason this *might* not work is that the rule requires Tenhigitsune to “communicate” eir choice, and Rule 2466 prohibits you from acting on behalf of em to send a “message” (or synonymously, to “publish” something). The only thing you can do is take the underlying game action on eir behalf—but here there seems to be no action separate from the very act of sending a message (i.e., “communicat[ing]”).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
omg I haven't nkep'd anything in years. On 1/15/2019 1:22 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include "quang" and "spaaace") Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to. I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for "nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk". (It's not a very commonly used word, after all!)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:22 +, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau > > Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which > > is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words > > include "quang" and "spaaace") > > > > Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to. > > I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for > "nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk". > (It's not a very commonly used word, after all!) And as a followup, the most relevant of the many nkep precedents appears to be CFJ 2625 (which is almost exactly this situation, attempting to act on behalf of another player using a word that has not been publicly defined). I disagree with the outcome of that case (as you can see from the arguments), and I'm not sure it gives us any guidance for sorting out this situation anyway (as unlike in CFJ 2625, there's no reason to suppose that the player in question knows the meaning of the word, nor that they are paying enough attention to the game to object to an attempt to use it incorrectly). -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau > Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which > is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include > "quang" and "spaaace") > > Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to. I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for "nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk". (It's not a very commonly used word, after all!) -- ais523
