G., you're making some interesting arguments. Here's how I see things, first of all.
Let's suppose the rules say that a particular switch has two possible values, A and B. To me, there are three possible situations here. The first situation is that it is clear which value the switch has. In this case, we say that the value is unambiguous and determinate. The second situation is that it's not immediately clear which value the switch has, but there exists some reasonable method that could be used to determine or decide what the value is. In this case, we say that the value is ambiguous but determinate. The third situation is that it's not clear which value the switch has, and furthermore, there does not even exist any reasonable method that could be used to determine or decide what the value is. In this case, we say that the value is ambiguous and, furthermore, that it is indeterminate. You seem to be saying that it's possible for a value to be unambiguous despite being indeterminate. That sounds impossible to me; that obviously contradicts the meaning of the word "unambiguous". You seem to be saying that if a rule says "a player gets a coin" without specifying who, then even though the rule does not specify who gets the coin, and even though it is not clear who gets the coin, the rule is nevertheless NOT "silent or unclear" as to who gets the coin. Am I understanding you right? The only kind of justification I can think of for such beliefs is that Agora is insusceptible to classical reasoning, and that a value may be unambiguous in the Agoran sense despite being ambiguous according to the standard meaning of the word "ambiguous". Indeed, perhaps you also think that a sentence about Agora can be both true in the Agoran sense and false in the Agoran sense without resulting in a logical explosion. Or perhaps you also think that a sentence can be truth-bearing in the Agoran sense, yet not true in the Agoran sense, yet not false in the Agoran sense. For what it's worth, I steadfastly refuse to consider Agora to be insusceptible to classical reasoning. Even if a rule were to say something like "Agora is not susceptible to classical reasoning, and it is possible for a statement to be both true and false without resulting in a logical explosion", I would consider that clause to be self-inconsistent and therefore meaningless and ineffective. (Indeed, a rule currently *does* say something like that, and I *do* consider than clause to be self-inconsistent and therefore meaningless and ineffective.) Now, I admit that this message has a rant-like quality. I assure you all that I enjoyed reading G.'s response and I am enjoying writing this response back as well. :D Given this rant-like quality, some of you might wonder if my thoughts here are related to my reasons for leaving Agora. They are not; I will briefly describe what my reasons for leaving Agora are. There are two. The first reason is that Agora is a nomic which calls for a significant amount of recordkeeping and I haven't found the time to assist with that. The second reason is that I'm much more interested in economics-based gameplay than law-based gameplay (although I am interested in law-based gameplay as well), whereas Agora is much more focused on law-based gameplay than economics-based gameplay. Best wishes from the Ethereal Plane of the Deregistered. :D —Warrigal
