On Nov 4, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement: ATMunn bought a Stamp in the referenced
message (posted on or about 2 Nov 2017 14:34 Z).
This is CFJ 3590. I assign it to o.
I find this CFJ to be FALSE.
The test given in CFJ 3409 is clear. Given the below message:
From: ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org
To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 09:34:46 -0400
Subject: BUS: I buy a Stamp, transferring 6 shinies to Agora to do so.
Let's test the limits of how far subject line actions can go...
Feel free to CFJ.
The arms of the test run as follows:
1. Are there multiple actions that can be inferred?
No. There is a single action which can be inferred from the message, including
the subject line.
2. Is there a real doubt as to what is intended?
No. The subject line of the message in question is crystal clear as to the
intended action, and the message body can only be interpreted, outside of the
rules, as an instruction to refer to the subject line.
3. Is timing an issue? (multiple events in the message).
No. Taking the subject line into account, the message could only contain at
most one action. Leaving the subject line out, it contains none. In neither
case is timing or ordering important.
4. Is anything purposefully obfuscated?
No. Every relevant part of the message is plainly visible, without
extraordinary effort, in ordinary email clients.
5. Does the message text infer the type of action that can be made clear from
the subject line?
Importantly, no. This is where ATMunn’s message fails the test: the message
body infers no actions at all.
There are two additional factors that suggest that subject-line-only actions,
such as ATMunn’s attempt here, should not be permitted in the general case:
historical convention and the interests of Agora as a whole. Other than
exceptions such as registration, which have historically adhered to looser
conventions than Agoran gameplay as a whole, the subject line of a message has
generally not been taken as part of the message.
This has three important safety properties. First, _replies_ to messages cannot
accidentally include attempts to perform the same action as the original
message’s sender, by automatically repeating the original message’s subject
line. Certainly, replying to ATMunn’s message on a public forum should not
imply that the respondant _also_, intentinoally, attempts to buy a stamp.
Second, in cases where a message’s subject and text are mutually contradictory,
this convention provides a simple and clear system for determining which of the
two should take effect. Finally, it completely avoids the question of when,
within a larger message containing multiple actions, the action contemplated in
the message’s subject line should occur.
I see no reason to overturn Agoran gameplay conventions at this time. Given the
above, I find the statement "ATMunn bought a Stamp in the referenced message
(posted on or about 2 Nov 2017 14:34 Z).” to be FALSE.
-o
