On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:47 AM Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 05/20/2017 11:37 AM, caleb vines wrote: > > I'm fairly certain that if the bar is that intent must be "[clear] and > reasonably [unambiguous]" and the best that can be said in favor is "some > argument," this post does not meet that bar. There is a non-zero amount of > reasonably ambiguous language and intent which makes me believe this would > not count as a registration. > > If the post used any language implying Playership like a synonym or > conjugation of "play" or "join," I'd agree that it's reasonably > unambiguous. As is, I'm not convinced. > > > There's considerable precedent that nothing like that is necessary. CFJ > 2972 held that omd registered with the message "Guess what I intend to do > at this time?". Many other such examples exist. >
BUT - omd was in the past a player, and then performed obvious player actions after the message. I guess if CuddleBeam started to perform other player actions it would remove ambiguity from their initial message? Also sorry to Cuddlebeam. We just had a kerfuffle about this yesterday, > which is probably a reason why it's a Big Deal. > > > Ambiguous registration is probably the most common thing to CFJ, and also > common to do on purpose. > > > > -grok > > On May 20, 2017 11:30 AM, "Nic Evans" <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> There's some argument to be made that sending a message to BUS suggest e >> intended to do an action, and the most reasonable action is registration... >> >> On 05/20/2017 11:25 AM, Quazie wrote: >> >> Okay - So this one certainly isn't a registration, right? This is just >> an introduction to a CuddleBeam. >> >> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:12 AM CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello I am Cuddlebeam! >>> >>> I hope this message goes through lol. >>> >> >> >
