E has announced it but e has not done it by announcement, which the
rules distinguish. It would be announced but still fail to be done.
On 7/17/19 11:00 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
My interpretation is that you publish every possible string, including
ones like "I cause Agora to murder BlogNomic.", but that it's not
EFFECTIVE unless the Rules actually state that you can do it "by
announcement" (or perhaps something like "publishing").
I do agree that some protection might be afforded by the phrase "by
announcement", since I do agree that a person has not "clearly
specif[ied]" the action, but I do still think that the person has
"announc[ed] that e performs it".
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:52 PM, nch wrote:
That's not my reading. The rules define "publishing" and
"announcing". Only things that the rules then say happen "by
publishing" and "by announcing" are influenced by that definition. I
would* interpret it to mean that everything listed as "by
announcement" or "by publishing" is done by every posted message.
That doesn't include every possible string, just the ones enumerated
in the rules.
I added the * because I see another problem with this interpretation
now, and it's here, in rule 478.
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.
"clearly specifying" AND "announcing" reads to me that it's only
successful if it's clearly specified. Weirdly this creates an
asymmetry. Somethings in the rules are done "by announcement" and
therefore need to be clear. Other things are done "by publishing" and
therefore don't need to be. However, in this specific case, both your
intent and your resolution have to have been clearly specified AND
announced.
To summarize: If the rules say "by publishing", and no other
conditions, then that condition is met with every message (under your
interpretation). If the rules say "by announcement", it needs to be
clearly specified what you're announcing.
On 7/17/19 10:41 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Assuming functional messaging rules, no, I would not argue that. The
hypothetical rule doesn't provide text for it.
I suppose that I am arguing that, by my reading, one is publishing
every single string of characters. (At least) one of those strings
of characters is going to fulfill every possible quality that a
string of characters can have (including "clear", "unambiguous",
etc.). If "blue" were a quality that a string of characters can have
(or something supported by the message board, not sure if it is),
then I would argue that sending a public message would "publish" a
blue message.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:35 PM, nch wrote:
If we passed a rule that said "every message is also an intent to
declare victory by apathy", would you argue that it follows from
that text alone that every message is also a *blue* intent to
declare victory by apathy?I don't understand how you're applying
characteristics of the message.
On 7/17/19 10:32 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Okay.
Let's take "clear" as an example adjective. If you agree that a
public message can publish a thing without specifying it, sending
a public message is "publishing" the message "I like cats.", which
is certainly clear. By the same logic, my public message is also
"publishing" the message "skfdhkjsdfhksdjf" (intentionally
gibberish), which is certainly unclear. Thus, my one public
message has published both a notice that is clear and a notice
that is unclear. That's my logic at least.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:29 PM, nch wrote:
I don't buy this reasoning, it invalidates the meaning of those
words and nothing in the text redefines those words. I buy the
idea that you can publish something without specifying it, but it
doesn't follow that it somehow has every quality imaginable.
On 7/17/19 10:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
No. In addition to publishing an unambiguous, conspicuous,
unobfuscated, and clear notice, I have _in addition_ published a
notice (all possible notices, in fact) that was ambiguous,
inconspicuous, obfuscated, and unclear.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:24 PM, nch wrote:
So your notice is also ambiguous, inconspicuous, obfuscated,
and unclear?
On 7/17/19 10:23 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Yes, yes I would.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:21 PM, nch wrote:
I think it's a big jump from "this means you can publish any
type of thing without specifying it" and "this means you can
publish any type of thing with any qualities without it
actually possessing those qualities."
If it said that the notice had to be in all caps and iambic
pentameter, would you argue that you've met those conditions
as well?
On 7/17/19 10:14 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
My point is that it doesn't matter if it's "conspicuous".
Because the conspicuousness requirement gets folded into the
noun phrase, it gets swept into the broken definition of to
"publish". If my reading is correct, I have published
_literally everything_ by sending a public message. By that
logic, I have also published "a conspicuous announcement of
intent to [do whatever]".
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 11:10 PM, nch wrote:
Oh I missed the "that" on first reading too. I still don't
see how it is conspicuous by your arguments. I don't think
the rules vaguely implying that it's possible, and not
being noticed until now, is conspicuous.
On 7/17/19 10:04 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Sorry, there should be a "that" in my initial quote, the
noun phrase being "an announcement of intent *that
unambiguously, [...] specified the action intended to be
taken and the method(s) to be used".
If the sentence were to instead read "A person published
an announcement of intent that clearly quacked." (all I
did was simplify the part after "that", it is obvious that
the wording "that clearly quacked" modifies "announcement
[of intent]".
And, anyway, if this reading is correct, as ais523 notes,
we have bigger problems than whether or not I have
Declared Apathy.
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 10:59 PM, nch wrote:
On 7/17/19 9:50 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Since the "unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and
without obfuscation" is an adjective phrase that
modifies "an announcement of intent", it, too, is
brought into the scope of the placeholder (X), and thus
I have published "an announcement of intent that
unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
obfuscation specified the action to be taken and the
method(s) to be used", as I have sent a public message.
Your argument would hold if the clarity phrasing were to
instead apply to the act of publishing, but it is broken
because it applies to the noun "announcement".
Jason Cobb
Those are adverbs, not adjectives. They modify
'published' as in "unambiguously published" They do not,
and cannot modify "an announcement of intent."
"Unambiguously announcement" is unnatural, and incorrect.
It wold be "unambiguous announcement".
On 7/17/19 10:47 PM, nch wrote:
That's a fair point in response to my first argument. I
noticed a few rules that say 'posted' instead of
published, so that should probably be cleaned up.
Still, the method you published the intent isn't
"unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
obfuscation". You even admit as much by saying "No, you
didn't miss an intent (well, at least not one that
stated what I was doing)."
On 7/17/19 9:39 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I specifically address this: the definition of
Objector in Rule 2124 does not use the broken
verbiage, it says "An Objector to an intent to perform
an action is an eligible entity who has publicly
posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the
announcement of that intent." - no usage of "publish"
or "announce".
Jason Cobb
On 7/17/19 10:36 PM, nch wrote:
On 7/17/19 9:19 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Arguments
The key (broken) wording here is from Rule 478:
A person "publishes" or "announces" something
by sending a
public message.
This wording does not require that the public
message actually
contains the "something" that I am
publishing/announcing. This
wording effectively says that, for all X, a
person "publishes" or
"announces" X by sending a public message.
By this reasoning everyone that has sent a public
message in that time has objected, since objecting
would be a possible value of X.
Rule 2465 states that I can Declare Apathy
without Objection. By
Rule 2595, I must fulfill certain conditions to
do so. I will prove
that I have done so for each one individually:
1. "[I must have] published an announcement of
intent that
unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and
without obfuscation
specified the action to be taken and the
method(s) to be used".
This invokes the definition of to "publish",
which is specified
in Rule 478. Putting parentheses around the
object of to
publish, "[I must have] published (an
announcement of intent
that unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously,
and without
obfuscation specified the action to be taken
and the method(s)
to be used)". Going back to my paraphrased
definition of to
"publish", the parenthesized phrase takes the
place of the
placeholder X, and thus to "publish" such an
announcement of
intent is to send a public message. I
certainly have done so, an
example one is in evidence.
I don't see how this can be considered to be either
unambiguous or without obfuscation.
