On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The first issue is whether the statement of intent "unambiguously > descri[s] both the action and the method". The method (Agoran Consent) > is correctly described. Whether the action is correctly described > depends on whether "all persons who support my acting on behalf of > Agora in this way" is unambiguous.
Well, that's easily answered: yes, it's unambiguous. Though this information can't be determined until the action is resolved, once it is resolved, there's no doubt about who the supporters are, unless someone manages to support ambiguously. > Precedent in CFJ 1334 (referenced by root's arguments) has held that a > statement of intent is ambiguous when it is missing an essential > parameter for the action in question that will need to be assigned > when the action is completed. Arguably, who actually supports the > action is an essential parameter here that is so missing at the time > of the statement of intent. No. The rules specify exactly what an essential parameter is; who will support the action is not one of them. The fact that an essential parameter is stated in terms of some other piece of information does not make that piece of information an essential parameter. > Allowing arbitrary incorporation of > volatile essential parameters would eviscerate the intent of the > rules' requirement that the action be unambiguously specified in the > statement of intent, for a clever conspiracy could completely change > the action allegedly intended after the statement of intent. Such a conspiracy would have to consist of getting arbitrary people who would support to not support, and arbitrary people who would not support to support. If a hypothetical person were to decide to support the action no matter what, nothing (apart from a proposal) could cause that person to be excluded from winning. The fact that "all persons who support my acting on behalf of Agora in this way" cannot be evaluated at the time of support does not mean it is not an exactly correct statement of who would win. > Now, this > case is not so bad because Sgeo does not control eir parameter. And, > indeed, some uncertainty is inherent from statements of intent because > the rules give latitude as to when exactly they are resolved. But the > ambiguity of Sgeo's intent rises well above that level, as the entire > contents of the most essential parameter of the action are determined > after the statement of intent. Again, this is not ambiguity. Therefore, I support Sgeo's attempt to appeal the judgement on CFJ 2065. (I'll bring in definitions of "ambiguity" if this point is still disputed.) --Ivan Hope CXXVII
