On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 3:17 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 22 Apr 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I'm saying that the action takes effect because you said that you > > wanted it to take effect, and that due to the weird way registrations > > work, a wish to be registered is self fulfilling upon public > > expression. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So, are you saying I'm a player regardless of Muphy's actions? That > will be > > > an interesting CFJ conclusion. > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:36 PM Aris Merchant > > > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> From what you've said, you appear to have consented conditionally, > > >> wishing to be registered iff Murphy makes a speech act intended to > > >> make you a player. As e has made such an act, I would think your > > >> consent has become active, regardless of whether eir speech act > > >> succeeded. > > This one's an interesting case. One could argue that e consented > to be a player when e made the deal with Murphy, even if e became > a player by other means (like ratification). > But I thought the aforementioned CFJs noted that ratification doesn't ratify incidental information? How could ratification make me a player in that case? > One could also argue that e only gave consent conditional on the > registration via Murphy working. But that's problematic, because > if e consented, e consented to follow the Rules. And if e consented > to follow the rules, e did so even if the rules tell em e registered > in a different way than intended. > > If someone attempted to register by publishing "I consent to be bound > by all the Rules EXCEPT RULE X, and I register given those conditions" > it likely wouldn't work, as there's no scope for negotiations there. > > -G. > > > >
