Daniel Lepage on 2 Apr 2003 00:54:01 -0000

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

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

On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 09:25  PM, Glotmorf wrote:

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

On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 06:17  PM, bd wrote:

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
on part of anyone else as to why it would be true. As far as I know,
disproved every iota of evidence saying it's true, while providing
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
legal to privately send them to the administrator, not that it's legal
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.

It isn't guaranteed that Dave checks his inbox either. Does that make votes you send only to him invalid?

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.

Why? I could snailmail you a letter, and snailmail an identical copy to Orc at the same time; these would both be private communications, despite the identical contents.

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".

One wonders why you're arguing against this; AFAIK, you're the only one who stands to have votes annulled as a result...


spoon-discuss mailing list