Well i held in that case that falsifian's submission did fall as a single
block

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:29 PM Reuben Staley via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/11/20 10:01 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:41 PM Reuben Staley via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >> I retract the quoted proposal and submit the following in its place:
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Title: Agora plays table tennis
> >> AI: 0.1
> >> Author: Trigon
> >> Coauthors:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> > I call the following CFJ: "In the above message, Trigon created a
> proposal"
> >
> > The relevant precedent is CFJ 3744 where it said that it was up to the
> > specific speech act as to whether a proposal that was submitted with an
> > invalid AI failed entirely or defaulted to 1.0 AI. The speech in that
> case
> > was found clear, but the speech in this case is very different (and much
> > closer to the default way that most people create proposals). Per CFJ
> 3744,
> > if this message _really_ means ""I create a proposal with
> > the following Title, Coauthors, AI, and Text properties" then the
> > proposal would entirely fail, whereas it would succeed with AI=1 if
> > the message _really_ means ""I
> > create a proposal with the following text. I optionally specify an AI. I
> > optionally specify a Title. I optionally specify coauthors"
>
> Gratuitous Arguments: Having reread the relevant CFJ, I would argue that
> the framing device I used implies submission of the proposal and all its
> specified attributes as a single block. I stated "I... submit the
> following [proposal]" not "I submit the following proposal text and
> attributes" as Falsifian did in CFJ 3744.
>
> --
> Trigon
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

Reply via email to