On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 8:35 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 7/26/2021 11:09 PM, Aspen via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Proto: dating standards > >> > >> Amend Rule 478 (Fora) by replacing: > >> performed at the time date-stamped on that message > >> with: > >> performed at the earliest credible time date-stamped on that message > >> > >> ["earliest" because that's closest to hitting the send key, "credible" to > >> make it clear that it's a matter of evidence not logic. In practice, this > >> means go with the Date: field unless there's evidence that it's not > >> credible in some way, in which case go with the next earliest - likely the > >> first forum stamp]. > >> > > > > I'd prefer to leave this more open. I do agree that "the time > > date-stamped on that message" is actively confusing, and should be > > changed. However, I don't think the right solution is to legislate a > > standard for something that game custom can (IMO) just do a better > > chance of handling. > > > > Here are a few alternatives that preserve our current way of handling this: > > > > "performed at exactly one of the times date-stamped on that message" > > > > "performed at exactly one of the times date-stamped on that message; > > selecting which one is a matter of game custom" > > > > The first one may prompt questions from new players, but is perhaps > > stylistically cleaner. The later one is a nearly verbatim copy of the > > current rule annotation. > > I'm really not keen on this approach. It doesn't clarify, instead it > suggests there's an arbitrary menu of options, which is worse than now. I > think, fairly strongly, we should suggest in the text of a rule that we're > actually trying to get close to the time of sending (time the 'send' key > is hit). > > If my options were leaving it as now, and making it "one of the > timestamps", I'd leave it as now, because the 100% natural reading of the > current language is that the "date" is the time of send, and it's only due > to our over-technical knowledge (that it can be forged, potentially) that > we worry about other readings. >
I'm okay with leaving it the way it is too. I just don't like trying to clarify, because if you clarify meaningfully you're also limiting the range of possible judicial interpretations, and I don't think that's a good thing here. -Aspen
