On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > my message could have been sent, and had a reasonable effect, at any time > in the last few years-- so how was sending it at that particular time > acknowledging the existence of anything?
Further reflection brings up something interesting for me in terms of overall style of Agoran gameplay. Let's say that comex specifically disavowed acknowledging any proposals while voting (e didn't do so, but still). Like this: "I vote for all decisions in their voting period. Such a possible vote in no way acknowledges that any such proposals actually exist". This reminds me, rather, of the following approximate exchange from "Yes, Minister": Bernard: What should I do if the Prime Minister has told me of plans, in confidence, that I don't feel the Civil Service should support? Sir Humphrey: Well, you should keep them in confidence, Bernard! You should neither confirm nor deny the existence of any such plans to me! But let me ask you: does the P.M have plans to do X? Bernard: No. Sir Humphrey: Does the P.M. have plans to do Y? Bernard: No. Sir Humphrey: Does the P.M. have plans to to Z? Bernard: I can neither confirm nor deny that the P.M. has plans to do Z. Sir Humphrey: Thank you, Bernard. So, from a Sir Humphrey point of view, of course Bernard hasn't communicated any plans to do Z. But any reasonable observer (read, any judge faced with a transcript of the exchange), Bernard clearly did. I'm really torn, here. Agora seems to veer between Sir Humphrey and Reasonable Observer points of view (in fact, the Town Fountain required some nearly identical Sir Humphrey thinking - issues of speech and acknowledgement are particularly vulnerable, because you can say just about anything while not formally saying it). It seems to be that these days I go more for the Reasonable Observer viewpoint. (I was actually thinking that the evolution of this point of view in judgements was fascinating...fertile ground for a thesis). I personally don't see the harm in having that be one of those "areas of difference" that we let stand between individual judges, though I know (from the past debate over legalistic versus equity contracts) that others, specifically comex, have a strong feel for the legalistic version. Should we judge/legislate strongly versus one or the other? The rules invoke reasonableness a fair amount, but on the other hand we are quite nitpicky Agorans and very often stand on ceremony. I don't really know, and selecting the style seems to be what I debate with myself most often on a lot of close cases like this one. -G.
