I agree it's just as reasonable either way - point is that you want stick with a consistent interpretation, and the last time it came up, that was the decision. Perfectly valid to propose an explicit clarifying line to R478 and put it to a vote.
I would personally always forget to look for the action in the subject line, so I would vote for a clarification of "message text only". But that's preference not logic. On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Imo its pretty subjective because it's not standardized as other stuff. > I find it just as reasonable for them to count as not. > > Maybe we could make a rule/sentence on what constitutes a valid message to > a-b. > > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:00, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an > > email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't > > see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I > > do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so > > you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for > > that to work in this particular case. > > There is no rule. It comes down to what the definition of "message" is > in R478. Is it the message text, or does it include subject line? > That's > some place where the rules are silent, so it's left up to "game custom, > common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests > of > the game." > > The general game custom/past judgements are that, for various > reasons[1], > it is for the good of the game to not count subject lines, unless the > message text explicitly refers to the subject line (e.g. says "I take > the action in the subject line"). > > That consensus could always be revisited via CFJ, but in the absence of > doing so, we'd assume it holds. > > [1] Some previously-given reasons, not arguing for or against just > listing > some considerations: > > 1. Actions in a message happen in order. Subject line is "out of the > order" and not clear where it comes (unless part of the message text > explicitly refers to it). > > 2. If we allow actions in headers, why not hidden headers? And that > then becomes too easy to hide things in. > > 3. Subject lines rapidly drift away from their original purpose in > threads. It is often not clear (much less so then for quoted parts > of the message) when one is an original action versus a reply. > > 4. It's very useful to have non-action Titles that contain descriptions > of actions. For example "[Arbitor] CFJ XXX assigned to YYY". > This is a convenient label, and players shouldn't have to constantly > be worried "did I accidentally put an action in my label?" > > > > > > > >
