teucer wrote:
I initiate an inquiry CFJ on the statement {No actions were performed
by announcement due to the first 6 lines of the above-quoted message}
with arguments {Any specification of an action in those lines is
unclear due to, if those lines are an encoded message rather than just
gibberish, the encoding that has been applied to those lines.} and
evidence {Rule 478, the above-quoted message}.
Gratuitous: If the message in question had mentioned its encoding
method, then this would be FALSE by the precedent of CFJ 2062. I
think it's still FALSE, as the encoding method is reasonably simple
to guess and decode. Contrast CFJs 3040-41, where the encoding
method was mentioned but (as a one-way hash) was judged unreasonably
difficult to decode.
