Glotmorf on 2 Apr 2003 03:17:01 -0000

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

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

--- Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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?

It isn't guaranteed that Dave checks his inbox any
more that it's guaranteed that Dave does anything in
his capacity as administrator.  It is, however, a game
requirement, and therefore is specified in the context
of the game: the Administrator acknowledges stuff sent
to a public forum or, in the instances now under
discussion, sent privately to him.  If he doesn't read
spoon-discuss, nothing happens in a game context
because he's not required to; whereas if he doesn't
read spoon-business we have a state of emergency.

Since the rules require the administrator to
acknowledge things sent to him privately, he must
check his inbox for things that qualify.  Since his
email address is publicly known, it is reasonable for
him to assume it's used; therefore, he's not required
to arrange for indirect delivery of anything other
than things specified by the rules, such as

> > 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.

You could do that, but sending it to Mr. in a
Spacesuit would be over and above your sending it to
me.  It's a separate act; unless you use some
automated mail delivery system that maintains an audit
trail, you would be sending one physical letter to me
and another to him, and, upon receiving said letter,
neither one of us would know for certain whether it
was sent to only one of us or both of us until we got
together and compared notes.

I suppose you could bcc an email also.  That's not
really the point.  The point is that the rules dictate
that the administrator must provide some means for
messages to be sent directly to him independent of
spoon-business; nowhere does it say that that means
has to be spoon-discuss.

> > 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...

Er...why would *I* have votes annulled?  Don't tell me
I posted the M-Tek position to spoon-discuss again...?

Well...even if I did, I stand by this opinion.  If I
didn't post my damn votes to spoon-business, or email
Dave privately, Dave is under no obligation to
recognize them.  It would be nice and appreciated if
he did so out of the kindness of his heart, but he's
not obligated to.

-- Glotmorf

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
spoon-discuss mailing list