Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] less judges

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/31/03 at 6:45 PM Daniel Lepage wrote:

>On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 06:17  PM, bd wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Monday 31 March 2003 05:53 pm, Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:
>>> And since we're talking about the ruling, I would love to hear any
>>> analysis
>>> on part of anyone else as to why it would be true.  As far as I know,
>>> I've
>>> disproved every iota of evidence saying it's true, while providing
>>> plenty
>>> saying it's false.
>>
>> spoon-discuss is sent publicly, even though it isn't a public forum.
>> spoon-business is both public and a public forum. The rule says they
>> it's
>> legal to privately send them to the administrator, not that it's legal
>> to
>> send them *through a private forum* to the administrator. QED.
>>
>
>To do something privately does not exclude all other people knowing it.
>If it did, as you seem to think, then Dave could nullify anyone's votes
>simply by announcing them to somebody else. It wouldn't even need to be
>a player - Dave could go get drunk and rowdy and get arrested, and
>mumble what you voted to the cops, and *poof*, there would go your
>votes. Fortunately, that's not the case.
>	By sending a message to spoon-discuss, a player ensures that eir votes
>will leave them and arrive in Dave's inbox. This is a private
>communication. The fact that the votes were also privately communicated
>to each other player does not negate this, nor does the fact that the
>votes were then posted for public review on the mailing list site; the
>fact remains that Dave got an email which was sent by a player
>specifically to em containing the correct votes.
>	Thus, even sending them to Spoon-Business would count as sending them
>privately to Dave, as e would be sent, privately, a copy; even finding
>some other mailing list which Dave subscribes to and posting to that
>would be legal (of course, if Dave denied that e'd ever gotten it, we'd
>have no way of proving you sent them).
>	I thought we had settled this already, almost a year ago, but I guess
>I was wrong.

I would disagree with this opinion for two reasons...

First, it isn't guaranteed that Dave reads spoon-discuss.  The Administrator is not obligated to acknowledge anything on spoon-discuss; therefore, Dave could, if he wanted to (and has, according to his earlier statements, been tempted to), de-subscribe spoon-discuss and cut his email volume by 75% or so.

Secondly, while something done privately doesn't necessarily mean it must stay secret, doing something privately does in fact suggest it is done in a manner that excludes others.  Dave can blab it all he wants after he gets it, but sending something to him privately would seem to suggest it's not sent to anyone else.

That it's called a private forum doesn't suggest any privacy in the act of using it; the context of the definition of "private forum" implies it specifically means it's not a "public forum", which has an explicit context in the rules.  It would be my opinion that the "private" in "private forum" is not the same as the "privately" in "privately sent to the Administrator".

						Glotmorf
-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a cyber-anthropologist's blog
http://ix.1sound.com/ivoryminitower

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss