Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3106 ============================== CFJ 3106 ============================== A public message sent by mr.snuglz@gmail.com has caused the initiation of a CFJ. ======================================================================== Caller: omd Judge: G. Judgement: FALSE ======================================================================== History: Called by omd: 19 Oct 2011 23:40:24 GMT Assigned to Yally: 21 Oct 2011 03:36:17 GMT Yally recused: 06 Nov 2011 16:05:47 GMT Assigned to G.: 06 Nov 2011 16:05:47 GMT Judged FALSE by G.: 07 Nov 2011 03:46:42 GMT ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: Although nicknames and email addresses are generally considered unambiguous ways to refer to a person even if we don't know his real name (which, of course, itself is not inherently unambiguous or unique), "Mister Snuggles" does not serve the practical purposes of identification, because it does not allow us to distinguish the referent from other relevant identities. Therefore, it cannot be considered to identify anyone - so the author of those messages did not actually announce that any particular person was performing an action, so did not meet the criteria of Rule 478. Since Snuggles does not seem to actually fear eir identity becoming known, this interpretation does not meaningfully violate eir R101 ii. right. I suppose you might consider a John Doe pseudonym to be similar. You can accuse John Does of doing something without knowing their identities or number, but you cannot deal with John Doe #7 specially until the court has found a corresponding person and thus given the name a definition. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Mister Snuggles wrote: >> i also call a cfj on the statement "the executor of this public message cannot be determined with reasonable effort". ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy: Rule 478, relevant excerpt: 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. Especially in light of these cases, I argue that the scope of "unambiguously and clearly" includes "announcing that e performs it", and that the identity of Mister Snuggles is substantially ambiguous due to non-trivial knock-on effects (e.g. if Mister Snuggles initiated a judicial case, then is ais523 eligible to judge it?). Contrast a previously-unknown person simply announcing "I register", in which case we know (barring perjury) that e is distinct from all other persons previously referenced by the gamestate. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by Unknown: my identity is unambiguous, because only one person has ever used this e-mail address. all interpretations of "mister snuggles" are objectively wrong, save one. unknown is not the same thing as ambiguous. mister snuggles ======================================================================== Judge G.'s Arguments: What we have here... is a failure to communicate. For a message to be "unambiguous", it cannot depend on information unavailable ("unknown") to an intended recipient. After all, the intended content of any communication is generally known in the mind of the sender: to say a communication is "clear but unknown to the recipient" robs the term "ambiguous" of any meaning. Any distinction between unknown and unclear was rejected when Agora first opined on AGAINT. In the case of public postings: The intended recipients are Agorans (or "a typical reasonably-informed Agoran"). The legitimate sources of information are generally publicly-posted messages date-stamped on or before the message in question, and facts that are common knowledge to typical Agorans at that same time. In R478, one of the pieces of information required for an action to be performed is an unambiguous statement that the actor ('e') performs it; if the actor is hiding eir identity, e does not communicate clearly that e performs it, so the action fails. Performing any kind of electronic forensics to determine which current Agoran is beyond any reasonable effort for interpretation. If, for some reason, the message-sender was lying about being a current player, e has still failed to identify emself as a unique first-class person, and until e does, e cannot do things that persons can generally do. As for R101(ii), requiring the identifying of oneself to exercise this right is not at present an undue burden. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by Unknown: i believe the word "ambiguous" is ambiguous. it could mean "having multiple interpretations, all objectively possible", which would mean my identity is not ambiguous, or "having multiple interpretations, all subjectively possible (that is, not actually known to be wrong)", which would mean my identity is ambiguous. the second meaning of "ambiguous" is essentially the same as "unknown". On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote= : > For a message to be "unambiguous", it cannot depend on information > unavailable ("unknown") to an intended recipient. =A0After all, the > intended content of any communication is generally known in the mind of > the sender: to say a communication is "clear but unknown to the > recipient" robs the term "ambiguous" of any meaning. =A0Any distinction > between unknown and unclear was rejected when Agora first opined on > AGAINT. g. is judging that the second meaning of "ambiguous" is the relevant one. (now, what would happen if i said, "every first-class player calls a cfj on ..."? that would be silly.) mister snuggles ========================================================================