Two quibbles: First, the correct link for “my email” where I stated the intent is this one:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039218.html In that email, the intent actually is not preceded by “>” marks. It’s freestanding. The text around it is preceded by “>”, but the intent isn’t. Second, it is not clear to me that R1728 requires that the statement of intent be clear and unambiguous. Instead, it says that the specified action must be clear and unambiguous—saying nothing about the act of announcing the intent. In particular, the intent is effective inter alia if “A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), at most fourteen days earlier.“ The action must be unambiguously and clearly specified. So to avoid surplusage, doesn’t that mean that the announcement of intent can be ambiguous and unclear, provided that the action specified is clear? :-) > On Oct 20, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote: >>> On 3 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote: >>> >>> CFJ barring Aris: “D. Margaux’s declaration of apathy >>> in this message was EFFECTIVE.” >> >> This is CFJ 3667. I assign it to G. > > EVIDENCE > > "this message" referred to in the CFJ statement is: >> From: dmargaux000 at gmail.com (D Margaux) >> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 08:43:44 -0400 >> Subject: BUS: RE: BU S: Some moves and such >> >> From my email of 29 Sep 2018 at 8:34 AM ET: >> >>> i intend without objection to declare ap- >>> athy specifying d margaux >> >> Having heard no objection, I declare apathy specifying D. Margaux. > > > "my email" referred to in "this message" referred to in the CFJ > statement is: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039225.html > > The important point is that the intention was buried in a reply > (demarked with > marks). > > > JUDGEMENT > > When you put something in quotes, without explicitly (outside the > quotes) saying that there's something relevant inside the quotes, > it's ambiguous whether the quoted text is an action, or past action. > This doesn't meet the "unambiguous" requirement in R1728 for > announcing intent. So it fails. I judge FALSE. > > More generally, it's pretty clear to me that stuff in reply quotes, > like stuff in Subject Lines, should not not generally be allowed to > be part of actions, UNLESS the unquoted (either above or below the > qoute) directs the reader to pay attention to the quotes, e.g. with > a "NTTPF" or a "I do as above". > > If we didn't draw a hard line there I'd be worried we'd be > constantly looking for accidental actions below the reply line. > >
