ais523 wrote:
On Sat, 2024-12-28 at 21:01 -0800, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
ais523 wrote:
(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.)
Not necessarily, it may simply demonstrate a desire to /possibly/ become
a player at that time, especially if pro-actively followed by something
like "I register" (to see which way the judge leans, but minimize the
reporting burden on the Registrar and other officers).
I've now found the precedent: CFJ 2980
<https://agoranomic.org/cases/?2980>, which references CFJ 2972
<https://agoranomic.org/cases/?2972>.
Okay, let's see. These both post-date the "reasonably" amendment, which
occurred in 2009 and changed the paragraph from
A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
prevented by the rules) register by announcing that e registers,
wishes to register, requests registration, or requests
permission to register.
to
A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that
indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e
intends to become a player.
("First-class" pertained to distinguishing corporate persons defined by
contracts, which needed Agoran consent to register, among other limits.)
CFJ 2980 pertained to a message from you:
> I call for judgement on the statement "I register".
>
> I do so.
CFJ 2972 pertained to a message from omd:
> Guess what I intend to do at this time?
This was about 36 days after e deregistered, and due to how Rule 1769
(Holidays) extended time limits at that time, I think this was within a
minute of the earliest time e could re-register. (Indeed, eir next
message said that e tried to send this one at exactly midnight UTC, but
ran into a technical issue.)
I questioned it anyway in this case:
> The message quoted in evidence has a Date: stamp of
> Tue, 1 Feb 2011 19:00:51 -0500; it seems probable that omd
> intended to register, but I don't think it's clear enough to
> satisfy Rule 869.
but G. ruled "Took my a second, but reasonably clear in recent context".
I still think that "I grant myself a Welcome Package" is a less clear
indication of intent to register than either of these previous cases,
even if it ends up being ruled as clear enough to be effective.
Contradicting this precedent may have major consequences for the
gamestate, given that it would probably mean that some players who
everyone thought were registered weren't actually registered, meaning
that their actions weren't actually performed, and self-ratification
has been broken at many points in Agora's history.
A few points here:
Many players have tried to find and patch potential issues with
self-ratification over the years, so while it's possible that something
severe was still missed, I haven't worried about it too much.
Whenever self-ratification is working, the potential roadblock against
self-ratifying citizenship is "did the person consent to be a player?";
but if e has been acting like a player over a period of time, and not
protesting reports listing em as a player, then such consent can
reasonably be inferred, even if Rule 869 may quibble about whether a
specific message by itself was reasonably clear/unambiguous.
Also, if all other players take the effectiveness of a potential
registration at face value for a while, then that's an argument in
favor of that message being reasonably clear/unambiguous, i.e.
"reasonably" also weakens the usual importance of judicial precedents
if no one remembers those precedents off the top of their head. But if
someone does question the effectiveness of a potential registration,
then probably either they or someone else will advise the target to
announce eir registration unambiguously, just in case.
--
[ANSC H:GE V:G B:0]
