On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 02:18 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > > I, coppro, intend this to be a public message under Agoran law. > > > > All Agoran players, please read http://paste.debian.net/66733/ > > (hereafter referred to as The Paste). > > > > I CFJ { The Paste is a public message. } > > I CFJ { The Paste would, if every Agoran player were to read it, be a > > public message. } > > I CFJ { I can retract a proposal entitled Don't Have to Send to Yourself. } > > > > I set the II of all these CFJs to 2. > > > > Arguments: > > > > According to Rule 478, > > A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent > > to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to > > be public. A person "publishes" or "announces" something by > > sending a public message. > > > > In this message (itself public), I directed every Agoran to read The > > Paste, even though I did not directly transmit The Paste to em. Is this > > sifficient for it to be considered sent to every player and therefore > > public? Alternatively, if the pastie.org server transmits the message to > > every Agoran, does that cause it to be considered sent to everyone, and > > thus make it public? I believe it is the case that until the message is > > sent to everyone - that is, they visit the site - the message cannot be > > public. Therefore I believe the first two CFJs to be FALSE and TRUE, > > respectively. > > > > As for the third CFJ, I believe it is UNDECIDABLE. If the first two CFJs > > are as I believe them to be, then the message could either be public or > > not, so a judgment of TRUE would be inappropriate, and a judgment of > > FALSE would become inappropriate if, at a future time, every player were > > to have read it. This would apply retroactively, since Rule 478 says > > that "Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time > > date-stamped on that message." I believe UNDETERMINED to be > > inappropriate because, since, if the message were to retroactively > > become public, the information would, from a legal consideration, have > > been available at the judgment time. Since neither MALFORMED nor > > IRRELEVANT are appropriate either (for obvious reasons), UNDECIDABLE is > > the only remaining judgment. > > > > I retract any proposal I may have authored entitled Don't Have to Send > > to Yourself. > > > > Proposal: Don't Have to Send to Yourself (AI=3, II=0) > > {{{ > > Amend Rule 478 (Fora) by replacing > > A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent > > to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to > > be public. A person "publishes" or "announces" something by > > sending a public message. > > with > > A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent > > to all players (except possibly the message's author) and > > containing a clear designation of intent to be public. A > > person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a > > public message. > > }}} > > > > I make this proposal Distributable. > > > > -coppro > > Quoting the whole message so there's a record for the lists. > > In reply to the third CFJ, I believe it is indeed UNDETERMINED. The > uncertainty, at this time, is as to whether everyone will eventually > read the paste in question and thus make it retroactively public; that's > an insufficiency of information at the time that the CFJ is called. > (Arguably, all other CFJs should be UNDETERMINED for the same reason, > that their truth value may be retroactively changed; perhaps it's easier > to judge the current value, and appeal if the truth value is > retroactively changed in the future.) > > -- > ais523 >
Why does it have to become public retroactively at all? What's to prevent us from saying that it isn't public until the time when everyone has read it, at which point it becomes public? (This also argues for UNDETERMINED as there's no way for the court to know whether that time has passed.)
