You have persuaded me at least. Also, in this case I chose to send the second
email. But if the duplicate email resulted from a technical glitch with no
conscious decision involved, it certainly wouldn't seem right or a common sense
interpretation to penalize the person.
In addition to the arguments you already made, I would put forward that for a
duplicate email announcing an action the second one no longer meets the
"unambiguously and clearly specified" requirement of Rule 478 if the intent to
perform it twice is not explicit.
If you want me to, I will attempt to withdraw the COE.
-Rance
On Wednesday, May 29, 2019, 11:01:24 PM CDT, James Cook
<jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:34, Rance Bedwell <ranc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I make a COE for this Treasuror's report. I posted two public messages
>announcing that I paid 2 coins to Agora. If I had been wise I would have made
>the second one conditional upon the + not succeeding. I was not wise, so I
>think I should only have 56 coins.
CFJ: Rance paid 2 Coins to Agora twice on 2019-05-20. Arguments to follow.
I respond to Rance's above CoE by citing the CFJ
Arguments:
I believe this is FALSE.
Rance's second email said "I apologize if this message comes through
as a duplicate.", which makes it clear that the first part of that
email is a retransmission of the same message, not a new, independent
message. I think CFJs 1451 [0] and 1452 [1] are relevant here: in each
of those cases, a player sent a single message across multiple emails.
The only difference here is that the emails are redundent (repeating
the same content) rather than splitting the content across multiple
messages.
Nothing in Rule 478 says that every email constitutes a message. The
fora are a way to send public messages, but I believe we should use
common sense (R217) in determining what messages the players sent.
[0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1451
[1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1452
