On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, omd wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think that there's a past precedent or two it's important to consider > > whom you can communicate to as part of "communication". For example, > > code or slang (AGAINT) is only communication if the "Reasonable Agoran" > > (or if things have to be really clear like rule changes, the Moron > > in a Hurry) could understand it. omd might understand Lilly, but I'll > > bet I'd have trouble... > > But we *do* allow communication to use Agoran slang and terminology > that would not be understandable to people who have not spent some > time understanding Agora's ruleset and customs,
I'm not saying we don't. I'm saying, if someone uses slang here, we say that slang worked to communicate ONLY IF both sides (the speaker, and the "Reasonal Agoran") could be expected to have a working knowledge of the slang. > not to mention > communication in English which would not be understandable to the > large percentage of the world that does not speak English without > spending years learning the language. Let's say a human started sending messages to the board in a language that no-one else here recognized, or said "this is an obscure dialect of Navajo" but didn't offer any other translations. At least one CFJ found that this would fail to communicate (this was when I tried Turkish, once; I think it was before "English" was part of any person definition). But it's a valid point; there's two issues; whether a particular entity is a Person, and whether a particular set of communications are clear communications. Since the personhood test is now confounded with communication ability, it's a bit tangled. > Similarly, we should allow > communication using dogs' body language which is not understandable > without spending some time understanding dogs. (Note that a > translation service would be applicable in the cases of both English > and dogs.) I see it reasonable to say "Yes Lilly is a person," but that it would be IRRELEVANT, in that any actual attempt for her to communicate with the fora for a legal action would be either unintelligible, or so strongly "translated and interpreted" by you as to really be from you. -G.
