> > > Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time
> > > date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages (including their
> > > contained
> > > documents) are performed in the order they appear in the message, unless
> > > otherwise specified. If the performer of an action in a message is
> > > unreasonably unclear, the action is canceled and does not occur.
> >
> > Is the "unreasonably" needed? By-announcement already has an unqualified
> > "clear" as a requirement.
>
> Maybe not? My concern is that I still want registrations to work, and
> we have no identity to tie someone to until they're registered.
Good point. Come to think of it, it may even be unclear to you who I am.
However, two new thoughts:
* "If the performer ... is unclear" could be interpreted to mean they didn't
write clearly, as in "Could you be more clear?".
* What if the performer is different from the message sender? Here's a
contrived example. (The example is probably longer than the magnitude of this
nit warrants, but what am I here for if not coming up with silly
situations...)
Suppose Alice and Bob are both parties to the
following contract:
{
Figs are an asset. Any party CAN by announcement transfer a Fig from any
player to any other player. Parties can also act on behalf of each other to
transfer Figs.
"Rotating the Figs" is shorthand for causing one Fig to be transferred from
Alice to Bob and one from Bob to Alice.
}
If Bob sends a message, clearly from Bob, saying "I Rotate the Figs", it may
be unclear who exactly is performing the Fig-transferring actions, since the
contract lets Bob either do it directly or by acting on behalf of Alice.
However, the end result is clear.
It's possible we'd want this to fail anyway, but I think it would be an
unexpected surprise if this provision that's at first glance only about
message senders comes into play here. Should probably be handled by other
rules if at all.
A couple of ideas:
1. Modify the definition of "public" to require that it not be unreasonably
unclear who sent it.
2. Change the phrasing here: "If it's unclear who sent a message, actions taken
in the message are cancelled and do not occur."
I don't know if #1 would have extra consequences, but I do like the fact that
rather than one rule saying "an action happened" and another saying "no it
didn't; it's cancelled!" we simply have that it couldn't have happened to start
with.
> > > Retitle Rule 2518 from "Determinacy" to "Don't Even Think About It".
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2518, "Don't Even Think About It", by changing it to read in
> > > full:
> > >
> > > The following terms are defined:
> > >
> > > 1. Clear: If something is reasonably obvious (especially, as
> > > applicable, by
> > > being reasonably visible and easy to understand), it is clear;
> > > otherwise
> > > it is unclear.
> > >
> > > 2. Ambiguous: If something has multiple reasonable interpretations
> > > that are substantively different and non-trivial to select between,
> > > it is ambiguous; otherwise it is unambiguous.
> > >
> > > 3. Conspicuous: If a text stands out so as to be visible with little
> > > effort,
> > > it is conspicuous; otherwise it is inconspicuous.
> > >
> > > 4. Obfuscated: If a text has been rendered hard to understand at a
> > > glance,
> > > it is obfuscated; otherwise it is unobfuscated.
> > >
> > > 5. Determinate: If a value can be reasonably determined (without
> > > circularity or paradox) from information reasonably available, and
> > > it
> > > does not alternate indefinitely between values, then the value is
> > > considered to be determinate; otherwise it is indeterminate.
> > >
> > > 6. Extricable: A condition is extricable if it is not unclear,
> > > ambiguous,
> > > circular, inconsistent, or paradoxical, does not depend on
> > > information
> > > that is indeterminate, and does not otherwise require an
> > > unreasonable
> > > effort to resolve; otherwise it is inextricable.
> >
> > I'm mildly against most of this change to 2518, unless you have an
> > argument that these defenitions are particularly helpful. (Did the
> > case of G.'s buried vote turn on one of these?)
> >
> > My first impression reading this was that a dictionary is sprouting from
> > the ruleset, which I personally prefer to be shorter where possible.
>
> My reasoning for adding these is that these words are, well, a bit
> confusing. What's the difference between clear and unobfuscated?
> What's the difference between conspicuous and clear? Yes, you can
> resolve most of these by use of dictionaries, but they're nuanced
> enough that you might end up finding that different dictionaries give
> definitions that conflict.
>
> Let me give "clear" as an example, because I think that's one of the
> messier ones. Google gives "easy to perceive, understand, or
> interpret." Wikitonary gives several two definitions: "Free of
> ambiguity or doubt." and "Distinct, sharp, well-marked." The OED
> provides two along similar lines: "Of words, statements, explanations,
> meaning: Easy to understand, fully intelligible, free from obscurity
> of sense, perspicuous" and "Manifest to the mind or judgement,
> evident, plain."
>
> Each one of those would give a different legal standard for clarity.
> Some of those standards are very different, some of them are more
> similar. While I realize that we can't define everything, these
> definitions felt to me like the sort of technical standards that work
> best when we have specific, agreed-upon tests. It also allows us to
> direct a new player to an explanation of our different clarity
> standards, the same way we can direct them to MMI for definitions of
> capitalized terms. Otherwise, the different clarity standards we use
> are just words scattered throughout the ruleset, with no guidance for
> a reader on how clear differs from unambiguous (and remember, they can
> be synonyms). Looking that up in any authoritative way requires
> cross-referencing multiple CFJs that interpret each of the terms.
>
> I'm not completely set on this. I could refactor it out into a
> separate proposal. There are definitely advantages and disadvantages
> here, I just think the advantages are larger. Curious to know what
> others think.
Okay, that's reasonable. It makes me a little sad to see the ruleset grow and
grow, but it's not enough to affect my vote. Maybe we can play with shrinking
it back in some later era.
I'm a little unclear on what a "condition" is in the definition of
"extricable". The word comes up in "conditional votes", where it essentially
just means a value depends on other things. On the other hand, I could imagine
defining "conditional actions" where "conditional" means "may or may not
happen". These seem like somewhat different things. Do you have a use in mind
for "inextricable"? If not maybe that one could wait until we see what it's
for.
> > One overall but minor (to me) nitpick: where practical it would be nice
> > to have less "spot the difference". E.g. assuming 1-3 of R208 didn't
> > change, maybe split this amendment into two (the first paragraph, and
> > splitting 4 into 4 and 5).
> >
> > Your presentation does have the advantage that I get to see the context
> > without feverishly scrolling through the ruleset, but I have to squint a
> > bit to see what changed.
>
> Sure, will do. I'll put the old text in a comment for reference.
Thanks.
--
Falsifian
