Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4034 Assigned to ais523
On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 5:54 PM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, 2023-06-04 at 17:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 5:04 PM ais523 via agora-business > > wrote: > > > It's also worth noting that G. explicitly stated in eir message that e > > > consented to the Rice Plan – the subsequent withdrawal was sent in the > > > same message. Although Agora assumes that multiple actions listed in > > > the same message happen one after another, this isn't something that > > > can be true of a player's state of mind, because the entire message is > > > sent at a single point in time; if the player had changed eir mind and > > > no longer consented, e would just not send the email, or edit it before > > > sending. > > > > I disagree with this rather strongly with this statement, given the > > Agoran strong assumption of sequential actions within a message. It's > > perfectly possible for a person to say "I consent to this at this > > stage of the message, then I do some stuff, then I withdraw my consent > > at the end of the message [after stuff is done]." That's really very > > standard practice, and it is possible to have that sort of consent > > process in one's mind when hitting 'send'. > > But a Rice Plan is resolved at the end of the week. There is no purpose > for which consenting to it at some points in a message, and not at > others, would be meaningful. Thanks, this statement helped clarify for me - if you're thinking of consent here as generally irrelevant except at the end of the week (it may be relevant sooner if contract states/conditionals are involved, but that's not true here), so that the "internal state during the message" is irrelevant, my objections to the natural consent section are less. However, does that mean that any cfj (like this one) called before the end of the week should be judged irrelevant? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4034 Assigned to ais523
On Sun, 2023-06-04 at 17:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 5:04 PM ais523 via agora-business > wrote: > > It's also worth noting that G. explicitly stated in eir message that e > > consented to the Rice Plan – the subsequent withdrawal was sent in the > > same message. Although Agora assumes that multiple actions listed in > > the same message happen one after another, this isn't something that > > can be true of a player's state of mind, because the entire message is > > sent at a single point in time; if the player had changed eir mind and > > no longer consented, e would just not send the email, or edit it before > > sending. > > I disagree with this rather strongly with this statement, given the > Agoran strong assumption of sequential actions within a message. It's > perfectly possible for a person to say "I consent to this at this > stage of the message, then I do some stuff, then I withdraw my consent > at the end of the message [after stuff is done]." That's really very > standard practice, and it is possible to have that sort of consent > process in one's mind when hitting 'send'. But a Rice Plan is resolved at the end of the week. There is no purpose for which consenting to it at some points in a message, and not at others, would be meaningful. It's possible to consent to an action occurring during particular parts of a message, but not during other parts (i.e. the state of consent is continuous, but the scope of consent is limited to particular points within a message). However, it is meaningless for you to natural- language consent, during some parts of a message but not other parts, to an action occurring at a particular point in time (i.e. the scope of the consent is continuous, but whether the consent is present or not varies over the course of the message); such a thing would necessarily be a legal fiction because that's not what natural-language consent is. It would only be possible if Agora managed to define consent to mean something other than what it actually means in natural language. It is reasonable to argue that Agora has actually done this (rule 2519), but my judgement was considering the two cases separately (i.e. consent-as-legal-fiction versus consent-as-state-of-mind), and the paragraph you quoted was about determining what the message meant under the consent-as-state-of-mind interpretation. I agree that it's possible for the legal fiction to vary within a single message. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4034 Assigned to ais523
On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 5:04 PM ais523 via agora-business wrote: > It's also worth noting that G. explicitly stated in eir message that e > consented to the Rice Plan – the subsequent withdrawal was sent in the > same message. Although Agora assumes that multiple actions listed in > the same message happen one after another, this isn't something that > can be true of a player's state of mind, because the entire message is > sent at a single point in time; if the player had changed eir mind and > no longer consented, e would just not send the email, or edit it before > sending. I disagree with this rather strongly with this statement, given the Agoran strong assumption of sequential actions within a message. It's perfectly possible for a person to say "I consent to this at this stage of the message, then I do some stuff, then I withdraw my consent at the end of the message [after stuff is done]." That's really very standard practice, and it is possible to have that sort of consent process in one's mind when hitting 'send'. -G.
