On Sat, 2024-12-28 at 11:46 -0800, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > 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.
I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here – I think there is no reasonable situation in which an unknown-to-Agora person would send that message without intending to register as a consequence, and anyone with knowledge of what welcome packages are could draw that conclusion from the message itself. In all three of your cases, the person intends to register; and the only one of the three cases which wouldn't meet the requirements would be the third, and only if the person intends to register in a later message / at a later time, which would be an implausible misinterpretation of the rules in addition to being an implausible action in general. (Compare the case where a nonplayer tried to table an action to ratify a document, in which the registration failed because e might have been intending to later register in order to resolve the intent – in that case, delaying the action is plausible, in this case it isn't.) So the message itself is sufficient indication of the person's intentions, as far as I can tell. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that someone might have intentionally tried to award emself a welcome package while remaining not a player; such a person a) would be running the risk of becoming registered by accident, and assuming that risk shows some intention of possibly becoming a player; b) would have had to misread the part of the welcome package rules that states that they only applied to players; and c) would be attempting a scam with no possible gain (and the potential loss of a welcome package due to the 30-day lockout). The rules are explicit in requiring registration messages to only be reasonably clear and reasonably unambiguous; to hold them to an unreasonable standard of unambiguity is to ignore the plain language of the rule (and a message is reasonably unambiguous if all interpretations other than the obvious one are unreasonable, as they are in this case). (It is also worth noting that "an experienced player aiming for some level of ambiguity" would also cause a registration: unambiguously intending to ambiguously register still demonstrates a desire to become a player. IIRC there was a past CFJ on the subject, although I didn't manage to find it.) -- ais523
