On 8/15/2021 2:43 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > Aspen wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 8, 2021 at 4:59 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business >> <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 8/8/2021 3:33 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: >>>> The rules actually say "clearly specify" at one other point (Rule 107, >>>> Initiating Agoran Decisions). In this case, while "exactly which part of >>>> this message constitutes the text of the intended proposal" is somewhat >>>> unclear, it isn't substantially unclear; any reasonable interpretation >>>> still leads to a proposal that, >>> >>> I intend to motion to reconsider this judgement with 2 support. >>> >>> In this judgement, the judge is (1) claiming the text is clearly >>> specified, but (2) then says it's somewhat unclear, but then (3) says any >>> reasonable interpretation works, but (4) then doesn't actually give an >>> interpretation, that's not clarifying at all (in direct contradiction to >>> the stated judgement). >>> >>> Regardless of the fact that multiple interpretations might lead to a >>> proposal that gives the same result, that does not make a single text >>> clear, and a single text is required. If "any reasonable" interpretation >>> is possible, then there's no clear single interpretation, which the rule >>> requires. >>> >>> -G. >> >> I strongly support and do so. >> >> -The Promotor, who likes knowing what e supposed to put in eir reports > > I recuse myself from this CFJ, but request that the new judge address > how the absence of "clearly" in Rule 2350 (Proposals) affects this > case. (Obviously it would be a good thing to fix legislatively.) >
Gratuitous: Sincere apologies to H. Judge Murphy for misreading / misrepresenting what e said about "clearly"! As for the terms, "specify" must be specific (i.e. if there's multiple reasonable interpretations, it's not specific). Maybe it's something like this: Specify = leads to only one reasonable interpretation. May be a little complicated, but not unreasonably hard, to follow that lead. Clearly specify = Easily/transparently leads to only one reasonable interpretation (a moron in a hurry could do it). Not specified = can lead to more than one reasonable interpretation, or none, or nigh-impossible to interpret. I think we've got at least a couple reasonable ways to interpret that proposal text (and I think that's what H. Judge Murphy implied as well with "any" reasonable interpretation), hence it falls in the "not specified" category. -G.
