Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Too subjective a precedent? Maybe. Discuss. -Goethe ]
Has generic and case-specific portions, which you've clearly labelled.
Good arrangement.
>When Agoran Rules allow an action to be conducted "by announcement",
>the specific announcement is the action in question, giving the
>appearance that we support ISIDTID. In reality, we are recognizing
>the actual act of posting a message as the action.
Yes. I'm surprised that anyone ever claimed ISIDTID as a general
principle. The rules are very clear that certain specific actions are
performed by means of an announcement that they are being performed,
and nowhere do they claim that actions can in general be performed in
that way.
>And also as custom, we have accepted this falsehood in many cases,
>most often in voting ("2xFOR" in place of "I vote FOR; I vote FOR"),
I'm not sure I'd classify that as a falsehood, just (as you say)
a shorthand.
>Trivial in CONCEPT has been recognized; it is easy for any Agoran
>in concept to recognize that "I do X N times" easily expands into
>N instances of "I do X",
You should probably refer to the precedents, CFJ 1584 and CFJ 1728.
> We should a priori assume that
>ISIDTID convenience works in the case of multiple identical actions
>that function by announcement,
Good standard. Our precedents mostly don't include rebuttable
presumptions. This one seems very appropriate.
>A failure is a failure, not a single success with later failures.
>The court, building on the precedent of 1774, holds FALSE.
That's a given from the pseudo-judgement of CFJ 1774. Your analysis
means that the interesting question in CFJ 1775 doesn't arise.
-zefram
