On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 01:04, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 00:59 +0000, James Cook wrote: > > I think it's pretty unclear. > > > > * Why should an attempt to do a players-only action indicate intent to > > become a player anyway? If I were to say "I deregister ATMunn" (my > > zombie), would you conclude that I intended, by publishing that > > message, to first flip ATMunn's master switch to Agora so that my > > action would succeed? > The reason that that doesn't work is that deregistration is by > announcement. Most actions are by announcement, and have quite a high > level of clarity needed to work. By comparison, the level of clarity > required to register is ridiculously low (IIRC this was an intentional > change to produce new interesting registration CFJs because the old > wording had been mostly thoroughly explored). So this sort of > experiment in implied actions can only really be done WRT registration.
So you think that if "by announcement" were less strict (e.g. R478 said "reasonably unambiguously and reasonably clearly" rather than "unambiguously and clearly") that deregistration message would work? (Let's pretend deregistering doesn't require notice.) Let me give two other examples. 1. Suppose I publish "I intend to pay 1000 Coins to win the game." I don't actually have 1000 Coins, so do we conclude that my message indicates intent to first grant myself sufficient Coins? No, we don't, because it's clear that I know that wouldn't work. So it's important that the method works to begin with. 2. Suppose I were not registered, and published "I like oranges". Does this cause me to be registered? If, for some strange reason, there were a superstition common among Agorans that publishing "I like oranges" caused one to be registered, then that might be a strong argument that #2 actually does indicate intent to become registered. And because of that, it would work, so this strange superstition would be justified. To me, ais523's situation feels like #2: if we start by assuming that this works as a method of registration, then sure, eir message probably indicates such an intent. But if we don't start by assuming that, why should we think that it indicates intent any more than my example #1 indicates intent? > > * Also, since a non-player can't submit a proposal, I'm not sure how > > your message was supposed to work. Did it simultaneously register you > > and cause the proposal to be created? Why would that work? > The message indicates that I intend to be a player at that time, > otherwise the submission wouldn't work. The registration isn't a > "speech act" but because it isn't an action by announcement, it doesn't > have to be. My complaint is the "at that time". The attempted submission happens simultaneously with the (alleged) registration, so I don't see why it would work. -- - Falsifian
