Re: DIS: the other CFJ (Re: extremely ridiculous)
On 1/17/2019 1:10 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I prefer interpretation #2. The person being communicated to is the > resolver; what is necessary is that e has knowledge sufficient to > determine the number being communicated. If we go with #2, here's something I just thought of. Yesterday you stated (as a resolver) that I (as a combatant) have sent you my desired value for Space Battle #0002. So you've said that my value is something you know. What if the second combatant then sends "I wish to spend whatever G. spent, +1"? On 1/17/2019 1:10 PM, D. Margaux wrote: On Jan 17, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: That's worth thinking about, but first I was curious at other people's thoughts between #1 and #2. I prefer interpretation #2. The person being communicated to is the resolver; what is necessary is that e has knowledge sufficient to determine the number being communicated. If we find in favor of #2, there's a secondary question: whether we take twg's word that e had set a definition for tau ahead of time, so that D. Margaux's 'tau+1' communication uniquely defined a value when it was made. So it's basically a "what standard of evidence do we accept?" case rather than a "what constitutes communication". It is not clear to me that twg said that e had determined a value for “rau” in advance of the communication. In eir initial message, e communicated that the value was “rau,” a word in eir own language, but I don’t think e said that “rau” had a fixed determinate value at that point. And later messages indicate that “rau” had a Humpty Dumpty/Alice in Wonderland quality to it, where it came to mean different things according to what twg was inclined at any given time. So that’s why I think rau and rau+1 actually didn’t communicate any value at the times they were communicated.
Re: DIS: the other CFJ (Re: extremely ridiculous)
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > That's worth thinking about, but first I was curious at other people's > thoughts between #1 and #2. I prefer interpretation #2. The person being communicated to is the resolver; what is necessary is that e has knowledge sufficient to determine the number being communicated. > If we find in favor of #2, there's a secondary question: whether we take > twg's word that e had set a definition for tau ahead of time, so that D. > Margaux's 'tau+1' communication uniquely defined a value when it was made. So > it's basically a "what standard of evidence do we accept?" case rather than a > "what constitutes communication". It is not clear to me that twg said that e had determined a value for “rau” in advance of the communication. In eir initial message, e communicated that the value was “rau,” a word in eir own language, but I don’t think e said that “rau” had a fixed determinate value at that point. And later messages indicate that “rau” had a Humpty Dumpty/Alice in Wonderland quality to it, where it came to mean different things according to what twg was inclined at any given time. So that’s why I think rau and rau+1 actually didn’t communicate any value at the times they were communicated.
DIS: the other CFJ (Re: extremely ridiculous)
On 1/15/2019 4:05 PM, D. Margaux wrote: >>> 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." I think this is a very different situation then the zombie one, and there's a strong case to be made for TRUE. So starting a different thread here. Let's say D. Margaux and twg had the following private conversation: twg: I've picked a secret number - I'll call it tau. Here's a hash so you know that I've chosen what tau is ahead of time. D. Margaux: Sure, I'll bite: I wish to spend tau+1. twg: Right, I now know exactly how much you wish to spend. Then when twg later publishes both sides, e reveals the hash contents, and tau has a reasonable, appropriate value. Now there's two ways to adjudicate this: 1. "communicate to the resolver the amount of Energy" must be judged strictly with all the onus of communication on the combatant. That is, D. Margaux's messages alone must contain sufficient information to communicate a value to any typical Agoran observer privy to D. Margaux's messages (but not privy to the contents of the hash). This would result in false. 2. "communicate to the resolver [twg]" can include context known to twg. Here, D. Margaux of eir own free will communicated sufficient information to twg for the value to be determined by the resolver. While risky on D. Margaux's part, it was eir risk to take, of eir own free will. This would result in true. In general, for private conversations, we've tended to lean towards #2: allowing lingo and context to evolve, or allowing private contracts / communications to work. That allows for more flexible, enjoyable gameplay (where "clever arrangements" are part of that). The downside is, if done in an official context (not a contract), it puts some onus on the Resolver to privately decide if weird communication attempts qualify (if e publicly reveals the two combatant's values, and one turns out to be invalidly submitted, e's revealed the other combatant's value too early and has broken the rules). This might be especially onerous/unfair if the duty falls to "the non-combatant who has least recently registered". If we find in favor of #2, there's a secondary question: whether we take twg's word that e had set a definition for tau ahead of time, so that D. Margaux's 'tau+1' communication uniquely defined a value when it was made. So it's basically a "what standard of evidence do we accept?" case rather than a "what constitutes communication". That's worth thinking about, but first I was curious at other people's thoughts between #1 and #2.
