DIS: Re: BUS: Citizen Registration

On 2 January 2012 02:17, David Jackman <davidcjackman <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Pursuant to Rule 869/32, I, davidcjackman, intend to become a Player at this
> time.

How boring! We should make it illegal to register unambiguously.

Hi, welcome, etc.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Citizen Registration

On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Elliott Hird
<penguinofthegods <at> googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 2 January 2012 02:17, David Jackman <davidcjackman <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> Pursuant to Rule 869/32, I, davidcjackman, intend to become a Player at this
>> time.
>
> How boring! We should make it illegal to register unambiguously.
>
> Hi, welcome, etc.

I call a CFJ on the statement "davidcjackman is Mister Snuggles" and
request a judicial declaration that it is TRUE.

—Machiavelli

DIS: Re: BUS: A meta-CFJ

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012, Craig Daniel wrote:
> I submit the following CFJ:
> 
> {{Submitting a CFJ on one's own playerhood might reasonably be
> interpreted as a request to join this game.}}
> 
> Arguments: recent Agoran custom favors very unusual join requests.

The "might reasonably" makes this so squishy as to be trivially true;
all we have to show is that there is at least one cfj that might be 
interpreted this way, and I think we've got at least one in the
database.  -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A meta-CFJ

On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> The "might reasonably" makes this so squishy as to be trivially true;
> all we have to show is that there is at least one cfj that might be
> interpreted this way, and I think we've got at least one in the
> database.  -G.
>

So it does. It's been so long since I played nomic that I need to
brush up on my tightly-phrasing-everything skills.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A meta-CFJ

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012, Craig Daniel wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > The "might reasonably" makes this so squishy as to be trivially true;
> > all we have to show is that there is at least one cfj that might be
> > interpreted this way, and I think we've got at least one in the
> > database.  -G.
> >
> 
> So it does. It's been so long since I played nomic that I need to
> brush up on my tightly-phrasing-everything skills.

Hmm.  This one's a toughie to generalize.

If you made your CFJ statement "All CFJs on one's players status 
are requests to join" it would be false, because it's easy to 
imagine the following:

'I want to make sure I'm not a player because I don't want to be, 
so I cfj on "I am a player." '

I suppose what's closest to what you're aiming for might be this
statement:  'If a non-player calls the cfj statement "I am a 
player" with no other context to the message, it should generally 
be considered a request to become a player'.

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: A better, more interesting unconventional entrance.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A better, more interesting unconventional entrance.

On 01/08/2012 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:28, Craig Daniel <teucer <at> pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> I intend to become a player in four weeks' time.
>>
>>  - teucer
>>
>>
> Too bad. Welcome to Agora.

Nope.

      A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
      prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that
      indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e
      intends to become a player at that time.
                                 ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A better, more interesting unconventional entrance.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A better, more interesting unconventional entrance.

On 01/08/2012 11:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:49, Pavitra <celestialcognition <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 01/08/2012 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:28, Craig Daniel <teucer <at> pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I intend to become a player in four weeks' time.
>>>>
>>>>  - teucer
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Too bad. Welcome to Agora.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>      A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
>>      prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that
>>      indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e
>>      intends to become a player at that time.
>>                                 ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
>>
>>
> At the time the message was sent, e indicated reasonably clearly and
> reasonably unambiguously that e intended to become a player.

That is a plainly ridiculous reading of the rules. Whatever happens as a
direct consequence of sending a message necessarily happens at the time
the message is sent, so your reading would cause the phrase "at that
time" to have no effect whatsoever.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A better, more interesting unconventional entrance.

This person did not indicate that they wanted to register *when they sent the message*, so e did not register
then. However, as there is no accommodation for delaying registration, e did not register at all. Thus, e
will need to submit a registration when they actually want to register.

On Jan 8, 24 Heisei, at 11:59 PM, Pavitra <celestialcognition <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/08/2012 11:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:49, Pavitra <celestialcognition <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 01/08/2012 11:30 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 00:28, Craig Daniel <teucer <at> pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I intend to become a player in four weeks' time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - teucer
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> Too bad. Welcome to Agora.
>>> 
>>> Nope.
>>> 
>>>     A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
>>>     prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that
>>>     indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e
>>>     intends to become a player at that time.
>>>                                ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
>>> 
>>> 
>> At the time the message was sent, e indicated reasonably clearly and
>> reasonably unambiguously that e intended to become a player.
> 
> That is a plainly ridiculous reading of the rules. Whatever happens as a
> direct consequence of sending a message necessarily happens at the time
> the message is sent, so your reading would cause the phrase "at that
> time" to have no effect whatsoever.