On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Aaron Goldfein<aarongoldf...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Ed Murphy<emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2581 >> >> ============================== CFJ 2581 ============================== >> >> Intents to perform multiple dependent actions were announced in >> the first message in the Evidence section, and each intent was >> resolved and made each Proposal in the Proposal Pool (at the >> time of resolution) distributable. >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> Caller: G. >> Barred: comex >> >> Judge: Yally >> Judgement: >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> History: >> >> Called by G.: 14 Jun 2009 01:58:59 GMT >> Assigned to Yally: (as of this message) >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> Caller's Arguments: >> >> Making "each" proposal is not an action in itself, this requires multiple >> dependent actions. >> >> Dependent actions each must be specified "unamgibuously and clearly" which >> is a stronger standard than simply without general confusion. For example, >> what if additional proposals entered the pool between the intent and the >> resolution? That would have created support before one of the intents >> mapped to an actual action [see CFJ 2316]. CFJs 2238 is also relevant. >> [I also seem to recall a precedent that set standards for "unambiguous and >> clear" that are stronger than a mapping that "all" might apply to a changing >> >> set, but I am not finding it at the moment -- gratuitous suggestions very >> welcome]. >> >> Therefore the argument is that the specification fails the "unambiguously >> and clearly" test and thus the dependent action(s) failed, strongly >> suggesting a judgement of FALSE. >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> Caller's Evidence: >> >> comex wrote: >>> I intend, with 3 support, to make each Proposal in the Proposal Pool >>> distributable. >> >> ehird wrote: >>> I support. This is rather rubbish. >> >> coppro wrote: >>> I support. >> >> Paul VanKoughnett wrote: >>> I support and do so. >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> Gratuitous Arguments by G.: >> >> In addition to R1728 requiring that an action be specified >> "unambiguously and >> >> clearly", R1670/20 required that the proposal in question be "specified", so >> that's a double layer of specification: >> A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable with 3 >> Support, or by spending 1 Note. >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> Gratuitous Arguments by coppro: >> >> The specification for any given dependent action must be clear and >> unamibiguous. This does not mean that a dependent action taken as part >> of a larger set of actions is necessarily invalid due to ambiguity >> existing in the larger set. Compare and contrast with Rule Changes, >> which must be entirely unambiguous to take any effect. As a result, any >> dependent actions to make Proposals made after the intent may be >> ambiguous, but the ones before should not be. >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> Gratuitous Arguments by G.: >> >> There was indeed at least one proposal that went into the pool between >> the announcement of intent and the attempted resolution. Ironically, it >> was this one: >> >> > On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> >> Proposal: No More Distributability (AI = 2, II = 2) >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> Gratuitous Arguments by Yally: >> >> CFJ 2517 >> >> ======================================================================== > > Although it is true that each of these actions are performed > separately, Agora has traditionally used shorthand to infer several > obvious actions. For example, players will frequently spend four notes > to destroy two rests they own. While technically this is not allowed > (as players can only spend two notes to destroy one note they own), it > is nevertheless accepted as performing the permitted action twice as > its intent is clear, unambiguous, and not excessively taxing on any > recordkeepors, etc. Following these guidelines, comex has followed a > similar path in making each of those proposals distributable as it is > clear which proposals e intends to make distributable and it is not > particularly hard on the Promotor or anyone else. Although e can not > technically do it, what e has done should be acceptable shorthand. I > therefore judge this case TRUE. > > -Yally
Please attach the following as further arguments in support of my opinion. In response to the caller's arguments, all proposals in the pool were made distributable at the time of allispaul's action. Intents to perform actions can be announced early in this way, such that I could announce my intent to make a non-existant proposal distributable without objection, submit the proposal in the next four days, and then make it distributable (provided there were no objections). As such, "all proposals" in the sense that comex has used it unambiguously refers to every proposal that could possibly be made distributable, which includes those proposals submitted in the interim of the intent and the action. There is therefore no ambiguity in the statement.
