Proto-judgement:
The exact CFJ statement does not extend the quote far enough. The full
text is:
> SHALL each once communicate to the resolver the amount
> of Energy they wish to spend in the battle, via any method that
> cannot be understood by the other combatant until e has also
> fulfilled this obligation.
The "via any method that cannot be understood" is part of the SHALL
requirement. So the requirement is fulfilled when a combatant communicates
to the resolver, without being understood by the other combatant.
Now, to communicate is to be understood; that is, common use of the term
includes the notion that information is successfully imparted, and if
understanding is not actually received, communication did not occur (example
use: "what we have here, is a failure to communicate.")
So: the combatant must be understood by the resolver, without being
understood by the other combatant.
No one can ever be sure that anyone else truly "understands" something, but
we can use the standard of what a "typical current Agoran" might understand.
So the communication must be made via a method that a typical Agoran would
understand, but a different typical Agoran wouldn't understand.
Clearly, this is impossible if the method uses public information for all
communication on the matter. To use the "typical" Agoran as a standard is
to assume that both parties, given the same public information, would come
to the same understanding. If a hash (or "secret language") is used, then
when the hash is first published, neither party understands/has been
communicated to. When the translation is published, both parties
understand. There is never a time when one of the typical Agorans
understands, but not the other.
Of course, if one of the Agorans is possessed of private information (e.g. a
code arranged with the resolver ahead of time, that e understands), this is
trivial to arrange, as it becomes "a typical Agoran with information X
understands X, something that a typical Agoran without information X doesn't
understand". Which makes perfect sense.
But under the assumption that the method of communication is entirely
conducted in public, FALSE: these conditions are never met.
On 1/15/2019 4:05 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I assign these CFJs to G.
On Jan 15, 2019, at 6:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
Favor, I can do it pretty quickly (but if anyone else is really keen I'm
cool with that too).
On 1/15/2019 3:52 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 11:16 PM, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
instead, all that is required for successful communication is that you evaluate
the meaning of the signs and symbols I convey to you in their full social
context.
That does make sense, I guess. I'd prefer some independent verification, though.
I CFJ, barring D. Margaux: "Tenhigitsune has fulfilled eir obligation, detailed in the
rule entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to the resolver the amount of Energy [e
wishes] to spend" in Space Battle 0001."
I CFJ, barring D. Margaux: "D. Margaux has fulfilled eir obligation, detailed in the rule
entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to the resolver the amount of Energy [e wishes]
to spend" in Space Battle 0001."
Of course, "in their full social context" is the important part. It would
probably have been helpful if I'd mentioned this before now, but twgese is actually a
cpizdacinsebangu - a language in which some words have different meanings when spoken by
a kolmba (such as you) or a tcacpi (such as me or Tenhigitsune).
I think it would be a mistake for me to explain in any further detail the English
meaning(s) of "rau" until those CFJs have been resolved. Don't want to make it
even easier for people to pin a Class-5 Crime on me!
-twg
PS: As fun as this is, I am pretty sure both CFJs are FALSE for the reasons G.
and ais523 have been outlining. But it doesn't hurt to make sure.
PPS: I am going to bed now, so please don't expect a prompt reply if you
respond further.
