Goethe wrote: > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Sir Toby wrote: >> >>> Kerim Aydin wrote: >>>> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >>>>> Identification is not a toggle switch with values "unambiguously >>>>> identified" and "completely unidentified". The message identifies its >>>>> sender as a player, which is ambiguous but still communicates much >>>>> more than if it contained no statement of identification at all. >>>> Just like writing a message in Turkish and identifying the language >>>> as Turkish clearly communicates that there is a message but for the >>>> purposes of the rules doesn't communicate the content. You know the >>>> CFJ of which I speak. >>> I do not know of this CFJ. Can someone illuminate me please? >> I can't find it, but I believe it involved someone using the Turkish >> word for a vote value (without identifying the language, even). > > CFJ 1460. Apologies I was overly glib in replying to root where I > think e and I have discussed this before. Anyway it's a nice precedent > on messages needing to have a reasonable chance of being understood > by intended recipients to be considered communication. -Goethe
Aha, there was a bug in the search function on arguments/evidence text (it was only matching against the caller's A/E).
