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