Did you read the entire message? On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 09:43 Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the double post but I just got another idea: > > What if I made an Agency/Contract that let me be other people's > talking-proxy? If they deliberately lie, they wouldn't be infringing "and > it was made with the intent to mislead.", because I wouldn't have "made" > the message with any intent, because I didn't make it at all, so I can't > make it "with" something. So despite the rules "believing" that I did make > it, that just assigns the tag that I made that message, but > intent-with-message wouldn't be there at all, because I never produced an > intent-with-message (although the original sender may definitely have their > own intent-with-message in their heads, but luckily that kind of > "thoughtcrime" wouldn't be attributed to me via Acting on Behalf). > > If this rule passes, and I'm correct in the technique I've just posted, > I'm up for making a trade with another person where we are each other's > talking proxy, so that we can never be hit by "no Faking" for whatever > reason. And its free lol. It's like having free "Indulgencies" back in the > days of Blots. > > That aside, is "to intend" something performable via agency? It's an > action, and it would be very ruleset relevant if this "no faking" passes, > because then I could reroute all of my intents to someone where those > intents mean nothing because they're mismatched with actions which have > nothing to do with them (assuming that thoughts without action based on > those thoughts aren't criminal, just thoughts). > > This goes a bit into philosophical territory so I'll lounge on it in a-d > for a good while before trying it for real, would my idea be good/feasible > in the first place. > > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Do statements on a-d count? >> >> Do statements that people publish elsewhere, outside of Agora, also count? >> >> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Aris Merchant < >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I retract the proposal "Truthfulness", and submit the following. >>> >>> --- >>> Title: Truthfulness v2 >>> Adoption index: 1.0 >>> Author: Aris >>> Co-authors: >>> >>> Amend Rule 2471, "No Faking", by changing it to read in full: >>> >>> A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. A statment >>> is a lie >>> if its publisher either knew or believed it to be not to be true at >>> the time >>> e published it (or, in the case of an action, not to be effective), >>> and it >>> was made with the intent to mislead. Merely quoting a statement does >>> not >>> constitute making it for the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, >>> conditional clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement >>> constitutes >>> part of the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or >>> falsity of >>> the whole is what is significant. >>> >>> The previous provisions of this rule notwithstanding, a formal >>> announcement of >>> intent is never a lie. >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Aris Merchant >>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > I submit the following proposal. Proposals are cheap, so I'm just >>> > going to put this out and probably pend it tomorrow. This alters our >>> > current "No Faking" Rule, changing it into an old-fashioned no lying >>> > in public rule. My primary motivation for this is the rather vague >>> > idea that it might lead to interesting gameplay, as it certainly did >>> > in the past. Note that it only applies to the public fora, so you're >>> > free to lie as much as you like on a-d, as I understand is >>> > traditional. I borrowed most of the text, tweaking it to make it a >>> > little less demanding. >>> > >>> > -Aris >>> > --- >>> > Title: Truthfulness >>> > Adoption index: 1.0 >>> > Author: Aris >>> > Co-authors: >>> > >>> > Amend Rule 2471, "No Faking", by changing it to read in full: >>> > >>> > A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. A statment >>> is a lie >>> > if its publisher either knew or believed it to be not to be true >>> (or, in the >>> > case of an action, not to be effective), and it is made with the >>> intent to >>> > mislead. Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making it >>> for the >>> > purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other >>> > qualifier attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement >>> for >>> > the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is what >>> is >>> > significant. >>> > >>> > The previous provisions of this rule notwithstanding, a formal >>> announcement of >>> > intent is never a lie. >>> >> >> >
