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

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 04:52  PM, bd wrote:

> 2 definitions found
>
> - From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
>
>   Privately \Pri"vate*ly\, adv.
>      1. In a private manner; not openly; without the presence of
>         others.
>
>      2. In a manner affecting an individual; personally not
>         officially; as, he is not privately benefited.
>
> - From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:
>
>   privately
>        adv 1: kept private or confined to those intimately concerned; 
> "it
>               was discussed privately between the two men";
>               "privately, she thought differently"; "some member of
>               his own party hoped privately for his defeat"; "he was
>               questioned in private" [syn: {in private}] [ant: 
> {publicly}]
>        2: by a private person or interest; "a privately financed
>           campaign" [ant: {publicly}]
>
> Seems clear enough to me.

Well, using WordNet's second definition, certainly, the CFI is 
trivially false - I, being a private person, send my votes to the 
forum; thus, they are privately sent votes.

Still, I contend that the CFI is equally false under the other 
definitions. An analogy would be sending a letter by snailmail; I could 
put my votes in an envelope and mail them to Dave, and that would be a 
private sending. I could also put copies of my votes in a bunch of 
envelopes, and send one to each player. These would also be private 
communications. Or, if I had a team of literate slaves working form me, 
I could give them a copy and tell them to make a copy for each player, 
and mail one to each player. That would still be private communication.

The Mailing List is essentially that - a machine that automates the 
task of sending a copy to every member of the list. Regardless of how 
many other people received copies, there would be one copy which 
appeared in Dave's mailbox.

As for the argument that -discussed votes don't count because the rules 
say they 'shall not' be revealed publicly, that's simply an 
impossibility in the ruleset. It's like if the rules decree that the 
admin must wear a silly hat, or that it must always rain in Houston - 
the rules have no jurisdiction over these events. It's also why we 
scrapped the Sushi Rule - it said the sushiied players *must* babble, 
but, being only part of the ruleset, could not force players to.

Now, if the voting rule said, "If privately sent votes are revealed to 
the public, they are nullified and have no effect, and are treated as 
if they were never cast", then your interpretation would be correct. 
But if it simply states that they won't be revealed, well, then they're 
just wrong. And there's nothing they can do about it.

--
Wonko

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