Nod, in that hypothetical I think you would have done nothing wrong.
I think the “obviously” is still false. Or, I guess there are four ways we might read this:
“It is obvious to me, and should be obvious to you, that in general, talking about my own research interests does not violate these norms”: I disagree, in general it can violate them.
“It is obvious to me, but not necessarily to you, that in general...”: I disagree for the same reason.
“It is obvious to me, and should be obvious to you, that in this specific case, talking about my own research interests does not violate these norms”: it’s not obvious to the reader based on the information presented in the post.
“It is obvious to me, but not necessarily to you, that in this specific case...”: okay sure.
To me (1) is the most natural and (4) is the least natural reading, but I suppose you might have meant (4).
...not that this particularly matters. But it does seem to me like an example of you failing to track the distinction between what-is and what-seems-to-you, relevant to our other thread here.
“My claim to ‘obviously’ not being violating any norms is deliberate irony which I expect most readers to be able to pick up on given the discussion at the start of the section about how people who want to reveal information are in an adversarial relationship to norms for concealing information; I’m aware that readers who don’t pick up on the irony will be deceived, but I’m willing to risk that”?
Nod, in that hypothetical I think you would have done nothing wrong.
I think the “obviously” is still false. Or, I guess there are four ways we might read this:
“It is obvious to me, and should be obvious to you, that in general, talking about my own research interests does not violate these norms”: I disagree, in general it can violate them.
“It is obvious to me, but not necessarily to you, that in general...”: I disagree for the same reason.
“It is obvious to me, and should be obvious to you, that in this specific case, talking about my own research interests does not violate these norms”: it’s not obvious to the reader based on the information presented in the post.
“It is obvious to me, but not necessarily to you, that in this specific case...”: okay sure.
To me (1) is the most natural and (4) is the least natural reading, but I suppose you might have meant (4).
...not that this particularly matters. But it does seem to me like an example of you failing to track the distinction between what-is and what-seems-to-you, relevant to our other thread here.
Alternatively,
“My claim to ‘obviously’ not being violating any norms is deliberate irony which I expect most readers to be able to pick up on given the discussion at the start of the section about how people who want to reveal information are in an adversarial relationship to norms for concealing information; I’m aware that readers who don’t pick up on the irony will be deceived, but I’m willing to risk that”?
Fair enough! I did indeed miss that.