On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 11-06-21 02:27 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > > --- On Tue, 21/6/11, Pavitra<celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Back on the first hand, I could have refrained from disclosing the > > > content of the document in question, and while it probably would have > > > been possible to discover this (the document does not remotely meet the > > > usual cryptographic standards of unguessability) it would almost > > > certainly be outside the Agoran standard of reasonable effort to do so. > > Arguments: Pretty much the first thing I thought of upon seeing the message > > was to take the SHA-512 hash of "I register." (Unfortunately, I read on > > before actually doing so.) Arguably, it is not unreasonable effort to > > reverse a hash when it's /that/ guessable. > > > > I have to throw a curveball at this one and remind that this is the act of > registering. > > The message context makes it very clear that Pavitra intended to attempt to > perform the action of registration. > > The fact that e subsequently CFJed, however, makes it not entirely clear that > e did, in fact, want to be registered. It seems that eir intent was more just > to see what happened and e likely is indifferent to registration. Thus I think > e is not a player.
Perhaps there is a new interpretation we should subscribe to: any "purposeful obfuscation" of a registration attempt does not "indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e intends to become a player at that time." That being said, Pavitra's current questions apply to messages and actions in general so this would just see it re-applied to votes or something else. -G.
