So what was the consensus at the time about this message? Although the game allows actions in languages other than English, does this include self-invented code languages? In the annotations to 754 I find [CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other than English, and its intended audience does not understand the language, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message ineffective.]
I would argue that a secret code constitutes (if considered a language at all) a "language other than English, and its intended audience does not understand the language". Or are we saying that the Assessor is the only "intended audience" of such a message? How much intellectual effort do we expect from an "audience" like an Agora officer to understand non-English messages? After all, I could define codes that are much harder to interpret than saying "AGAINT means YES", or I could choose to use a foreign language the responsible officer does not know. Klaus ________________________________ From: Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> To: "agora-discussion@agoranomic.org" <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 5:43 PM Subject: Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: request to join On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Klaus Herrmanns wrote: > In my opinion, simple and hard-to-misunderstand typos like AGAINT instead > of AGAINST should be regulated by the general rules on how we deal with > unclear communication and formal details. AGAINT has a specific history; someone privately emailed the Assessor and said "when I say AGAINT, that's a code for FOR", then publicly voted AGAINT. The CFJ question was whether the private code or the (assumed-by everyone else) typo was the valid vote. Because of that, AGAINT is now Agoran slang/in-joke for "a confusing vote". I agree with you completely on typos in general. -G.
