On 5/13/20 5:30 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> =============================== CFJ 3833 ===============================
>
> In the above message, Trigon created a proposal.
>
> ==========================================================================
There's probably some logical flaws and omissions in here, but I've done
my best to maintain and expand the precedent here.
Draft judgement in CFJ 3833:
CFJ 3744 held that, if a player does the equivalent of writing the
optional specifications of a proposal as separate speech acts when
creating it, any invalid optional specifications revert to the default
value. It also held that, if the speech act of creating the proposal is
phrased as an single action and is constrained enough, the creation
succeeds or fails atomically. I do not believe this is the conclusion I
would have reached, but I am nevertheless bound by precedent.
Rule 2350 enables creating proposals "by announcement". According to
Rule 478, this means a player CAN perform it "by unambiguously and
clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it".
In eir message, Trigon appears to "clearly specify" the action of
creating a proposal with title "Agora plays table tennis", AI 0.1, no
coauthors, and the provided text. It also appears that e has specified
only a single action (creating a proposal), rather than the multiple
actions required by CFJ 3744 to permit non-atomic specifications (I
create a proposal, I specify an attribute, I specify another attribute).
Given that the AI was invalid, and the creation was phrased as a single
act, under CFJ 3744, Trigon did not create a proposal in eir message. I
find FALSE.
More generally, I find that any shorthand in which the creation of the
proposal is phrased as a single action (even those including shorthand)
qualifies as atomic under CFJ 3744, i.e. that speech actions creating
optional specifications must be made explicit in order to be non-atomic.
This means that all of the following are atomic proposal creations:
* "I create/submit/etc. the following proposal: [shorthand]"
* "I create/submit/etc. a proposal with the following attributes:
[shorthand]"
* "I create/submit/etc. a proposal with title 'A creative title', AI
0, and text 'Do something.'"
* "H. Promotor, I do hereby submit unto you this most honorable
proposal, with the hopes that it be adopted: [shorthand]"
It also means that all of the following are non-atomic proposal
creations, as the specifications are phrased as separate speech acts
from the proposal creation:
* "I create/submit/etc. a proposal, and I specify each of the
following properties: [shorthand]" ("create" and "specifying" are
separate verbs, so the creation is phrased as two speech acts)
* "I create/submit/etc. a proposal, specifying that the title is 'A
creative title', specifying that the AI is 0, and specifying that
the text is 'Do something.'"
* "Most Dishonorable Promotor, I rudely submit this proposal, leaving
you to figure out which defaults apply: I specify the title to be
'The best proposal ever'. I specify the AI to be 100. I specify the
text to be 'haha'".
Evidence:
Rule 2350/12 [Excerpt]:
> A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and
> other attributes. A player CAN create a proposal by announcement,
> specifying its text and optionally specifying any of the following
> attributes:
>
> * An associated title.
>
> * A list of co-authors (which must be persons other than the
> author).
>
> * An adoption index.
>
> * A chamber to which the proposal shall be assigned upon its
> creation.
Rule 478/38 [Excerpt]:
> Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by
> announcement", that person performs that action by unambiguously
> and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
> it.
--
Jason Cobb
