On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: > On Saturday 20 September 2008 08:13:45 pm Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, comex wrote: >>> Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as >>> "explicit"? >> >> Already very well and directly (almost identically) covered in CFJ >> 1290. -Goethe
> Reading the arguments on 1290, it seems that the consent was taken as > being self-evidently implicit and not explicit, and the controversy > was whether the rules at the time required consent to be explicit. H. > Judge solublefish ruled that they did not. No, e ruled that "knowingly" giving implicit consent, with obvious intent that it be consent, was close enough to explicit that it could be considered explicit. It would be as if I said for the sake of art or the style of a contest, "anyone can join this contest by announcing in all-caps GOETHE HAS BLUE HAIR", when there's no natural reason that anyone would announce that otherwise. E said, if announced *knowingly*, that that's close enough to explicit to *be* explicit. On the other hand, solublefish (quoting Crito) agreed that regular game actions taken for the purpose of those actions could *not* be considered consent if, for example, you made a contract that said "the act of voting will be considered consent to join this contest". solublefish was careful that knowledge was involved: consent was given in that case because in context I specifically, in reference to a contest, posted messages that, while withholding explicit consent, referred to the contest and was far more like the BLUE HAIR example than the voting example, basically, with full knowledge, daring the contestmaster to consider me a member of the contest. If someone else had posted similar messages without reference to the contest and in other contexts, it probably wouldn't have resulted in consent. -Goethe
