Daniel Lepage on 2 Apr 2003 00:51:01 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

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

     2. In a manner affecting an individual; personally not
        officially; as, he is not privately benefited.

- From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:

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.


spoon-discuss mailing list