Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) Re: Bus: \

[Automaticat via agora-discussion]

On October 26, 2025 1:22:58 AM PDT, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion 
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>This seems like it contradicts the guidelines for obfuscation provided in
>CFJ 3747:
>
>First, a reasonable Agoran reading the message must, at a
>glance, be able to understand the gist of the dependent action being
>announced. The rationale for this rule is that it is unreasonable to
>expect that player will pay attention to an announcement unless e has
>enough information to decide whether it is relevant to em. However,
>the details of the action may require more thought, just so long they
>remain easy to understand (I'd say anything that requires the average
>Agoran more than 30-60 seconds is probably out).
>
>
>
>The first requirement is met in that just squinting at the encoded intent
>is enough to "get the gist" of which dependent action is being done. If
>some letters were replaced with random characters, for instance, it would
>be harder to understand, but this case is more similar to a typo, or the
>Transposed Letter Effect, which would likely be equally readable barring
>additional confounding factors.
>
>The second requirement is also met in that the "decoding" process is very
>simple (3 and E look very similar, as do I and 1, A and 4, O and 0) and can
>be deduced with the context clues as the replacement is consistent across
>each word.
>
>That combined with there being no other "reasonable" interpretation of the
>text means it is NOT "obscure, unclear, or unintelligible" as would be
>required for obfuscation to be present. At the very least, it meets the
>R478 standard, being reasonably unambiguous in meaning. (There is also a
>bit of background on what "reasonable" means in Agora that would be
>relevant to this case, as evidenced by the lack of its presence in the
>quote the judgement provided when it is an important part of the
>requirement, "reasonably clearly and unambiguously".)
>
>
>
>> That some readers
>> decoded the meaning or even objected is irrelevant because the test is
>> objective and attaches to the text itself, not anyone's comprehension of
>> it. The community interest is also served by not opening the door to
>> encoded text being used to table an intent or perform by-announcement acts.
>>
>
>If you can tell what the "encoded" text means at a glance, i think the
>community will be fine and perhaps even benefit from the flexibility of
>allowing it. Full-on ciphers can still be disallowed while allowing "codes"
>that only take a few seconds to parse.
>
>I suggest you self-file a Motion to Reconsider this judgement, though I'd
>like to hear if anyone else agrees or disagrees with these arguments.
>
>--
>snail
>Steampunk Hat

I agree with these arguments entirely. I believe that a reasonable agoran coule 
read the text as it was intended to be read without even needing to decode - it 
just looks like the text.