ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2024-12-27 at 20:35 -0800, Edward Murphy via agora-business
wrote:
In the absence of such evidence, I find that the precedent from CFJ 3776
still holds. Merely attempting an action limited to players is not
reasonably unambiguous evidence of intent to register; it is reasonably
likely that a new player simply misread the rules and/or mixed up the
order of eir intended actions, or that an experienced player was aiming
for some level of ambiguity (reasonable or otherwise).
Part of this paragraph doesn't seem to match the judgement: if a new
player mixed up the order of eir actions, that *would* indicate an
intent to register, as one of the actions would be a registration.
True as far as it goes, but there are enough sub-cases to unpack that it
still fails to be reasonably unambiguous:
* E may have intended to register and grant emself a Welcome Package
in that order, but mistakenly did the latter first
* E may have intended to register and grant emself a Welcome Package
without realizing that the order mattered
* E may have intended to grant emself a Welcome Package and register
in that order, overlooking that the former would be ineffective
In particular, Rule 869 requires the *published message* to indicate
reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously. Eir intent being
unambiguous is not sufficient; we are not mind readers.
--
[ANSC H:GE V:G B:0]
