On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> The difference is that, while, for Agoran purposes, my message-- every
> message-- is parsed platonically with perfect knowledge of the
> gamestate, "acknowledgement" only makes sense in the context of
> incomplete knowledge-- in this case, basic knowledge of Agoran
> terminology to parse the message, but not specific information on
> proposals.
I'd agree with you for many sorts of actions, but I have a hard time
getting around the fact that a ballot must be interpreted as "clearly
identifying" a matter in order to be a ballot. And rule 683 states
that the voter must publish a valid notice (not that the gamestate
must platonically interpret it, but the voter must publish it), so
it implies rather strongly that the voter must publish something that,
by publication itself, clearly identifies (and therefore acknowledges)
the matter. That's a higher standard of identification, similar to the
current jurisprudence around dependent actions.
In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may
not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist),
you may be referring to it, but you're not "clearly identifying" it,
therefore not voting.
-G.
