Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Sat, 2022-07-16 at 00:35 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 7:27 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > No it isn't – "the proposal" has a perfectly well-defined meaning in
> > English, and it doesn't make sense to interpret it as meaning something
> > entirely different.
> > CFJ 3744 suggests "the proposal" was created multiple times, and wasn't
> actually a proposal, but the attributes of a proposal:
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3744
No it doesn't.
> It discusses shorthand which I almost used exactly and discusses what the
> shorthand could mean,
No it doesn't. It discusses a couple of possible wordings, but the
shorthand wording it discusses is specifically "Proposal:", and the CFJ
is discussing whether the shorthand succeeds in doing everything in the
case where the properties given below aren't valid as a proposal,
finding that (in that case) it would be unclear. It's also clear from
that CFJ verdict that wording matters when taking this sort of action.
> "I create a proposal with the following Title, Coauthors, AI, and Text
> properties" being a possibility, just as I argued before.
That's only a suggestion for what "Proposal:" might mean.
> "I create this proposal" and "I submit the following proposal"
> would be basically the same if create and submit are synonyms, and the
> judge interterpetted "I create this proposal: {Shorthand}" as having two
> possible meanings, both of which would mean my creations of proposals
> succeeded, as they were essentially the same as Jason's.
Neither of those wordings could succeed in creating multiple proposals,
because they both use language that can only be used to apply to a
single proposal. The judge of CFJ 3744 specifically found that "I
create this proposal" has a different meaning from "I create a proposal
with the following attributes and text" (in the case of CFJ 3744, the
latter wording was used, and the creation failed because it was
impossible for a proposal to have the stated attributes).
Are you seriously trying to argue that "Twice, I create this proposal:
{proposal}" is capable of creating two different proposals? I can't
read that sentence as having any other meaning than attempting to
create the same proposal twice (and whether two proposals are the same
entity is important because, e.g., putting a proposal into the proposal
pool, then putting the same proposal into the proposal pool, won't lead
to it being in there twice, just like transferring the same nonfungible
asset to someone twice won't lead to them having two copies of it).
Compare the hypothetical wording "Twice, I create a proposal:
{proposal}", which looks a lot more like two different proposals are
being created.
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 7:27 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> No it isn't – "the proposal" has a perfectly well-defined meaning in
> English, and it doesn't make sense to interpret it as meaning something
> entirely different.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>
CFJ 3744 suggests "the proposal" was created multiple times, and wasn't
actually a proposal, but the attributes of a proposal:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3744
It discusses shorthand which I almost used exactly and discusses what the
shorthand could mean, "I create a proposal with the following Title,
Coauthors, AI, and Text properties" being a possibility, just as I argued
before. "I create this proposal" and "I submit the following proposal"
would be basically the same if create and submit are synonyms, and the
judge interterpetted "I create this proposal: {Shorthand}" as having two
possible meanings, both of which would mean my creations of proposals
succeeded, as they were essentially the same as Jason's.
--
secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:27 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/15/22 22:02, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > But this is still only one issue you've addressed: you can still totally > > create something that already exists, you just make it exist again, > > duplicating it. Arbitrarily restricting creation to things that don't > exist > > is atextual given it's not any actual rules, and the rules already say > you > > CAN create a proposal if you specify everything so it should work. > > > No? That's not what "creating" something means. If I have a document, > and I make a copy of it, I haven't "created" the original, I've created > a copy. > You've still created the document again, though. It may not be the first time it's been created (the original), but if it's identical, you can still say you created it again, even if it is a copy (that just means it wasn't the first time it was created). Especially in Agora where it is much closer to identical. There is no rule in Agora or life, that something that has been created can not be created again. The creation and thus subsequent recreation (that is, creating but again) of entities is allowed by Agora, explicitly, and to say otherwise based on semantics does not seem right to me. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On 7/15/22 22:02, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > But this is still only one issue you've addressed: you can still totally > create something that already exists, you just make it exist again, > duplicating it. Arbitrarily restricting creation to things that don't exist > is atextual given it's not any actual rules, and the rules already say you > CAN create a proposal if you specify everything so it should work. No? That's not what "creating" something means. If I have a document, and I make a copy of it, I haven't "created" the original, I've created a copy. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 7:27 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > No it isn't – "the proposal" has a perfectly well-defined meaning in > English, and it doesn't make sense to interpret it as meaning something > entirely different. I'm saying "the proposal" CAN'T mean an actual proposal, because there was no proposal in my message, just the attributes of one. Agora regards the text i sent as entirely separate from the actual proposal, from my understanding. It's just the specifications. It entirely makes sense to interpret it that way because that's how the rules describe it: I was just "specifying its text and optionally specifying any of the following attributes". But this is still only one issue you've addressed: you can still totally create something that already exists, you just make it exist again, duplicating it. Arbitrarily restricting creation to things that don't exist is atextual given it's not any actual rules, and the rules already say you CAN create a proposal if you specify everything so it should work. -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Fri, 2022-07-15 at 19:23 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > It's as if I specified it each time I did the action, since "the > proposal" is just a shorthand for "a proposal with the following > attributes". No it isn't – "the proposal" has a perfectly well-defined meaning in English, and it doesn't make sense to interpret it as meaning something entirely different. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 6:32 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-07-15 at 18:17 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > > In order to force this reading, you'd have to write something like
> > > "81
> > > times, I perform the following action: {{{ I submit the following
> > > proposal: … }}}", which is a long way away from what you actually
> > > wrote, and I don't think this is a plausible reading of what you
> > > actually wrote (especially when it has a very clear natural
> > > meaning).
> >
> > This surprises me, I don't see a difference between "81 times, I do
> > X" and "81 times, I perform the following action: I do X" Is it not
> > the same thing? Would it be if it was "81 times: I do X" instead?
>
> It's to do with the size of X. You've written, in effect, "81 times, I
> do X. Y.", so Y only happens once, and in this case Y is specifying
> what "the proposal" refers to. "81 times: I do X. Y." would be
> ambiguous if it were all on one line (and probably fail due to the
> ambiguity). "81 times: {{{ I do X. Y. }}}" unambiguously has 81 Xs
> which each have their own corresponding Y, whereas your version has 81
> Xs which each share the same Y, i.e. they all correspond to the same
> proposal.
>
This logic relies on "the proposal" being something that can't be created
again, when really it's just the specifications of the proposal you're
referring to. It's more like "81 times, I do X. X is done with Y as the
conditions." Just because I only specified the parameters once, doesn't
mean it only applies once. It's as if I specified it each time I did the
action, since "the proposal" is just a shorthand for "a proposal with the
following attributes".
--
secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Fri, 2022-07-15 at 18:17 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion
wrote:
> > In order to force this reading, you'd have to write something like
> > "81
> > times, I perform the following action: {{{ I submit the following
> > proposal: … }}}", which is a long way away from what you actually
> > wrote, and I don't think this is a plausible reading of what you
> > actually wrote (especially when it has a very clear natural
> > meaning).
>
> This surprises me, I don't see a difference between "81 times, I do
> X" and "81 times, I perform the following action: I do X" Is it not
> the same thing? Would it be if it was "81 times: I do X" instead?
It's to do with the size of X. You've written, in effect, "81 times, I
do X. Y.", so Y only happens once, and in this case Y is specifying
what "the proposal" refers to. "81 times: I do X. Y." would be
ambiguous if it were all on one line (and probably fail due to the
ambiguity). "81 times: {{{ I do X. Y. }}}" unambiguously has 81 Xs
which each have their own corresponding Y, whereas your version has 81
Xs which each share the same Y, i.e. they all correspond to the same
proposal.
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
> In order to force this reading, you'd have to write something like "81
> times, I perform the following action: {{{ I submit the following
> proposal: … }}}", which is a long way away from what you actually
> wrote, and I don't think this is a plausible reading of what you
> actually wrote (especially when it has a very clear natural meaning).
This surprises me, I don't see a difference between "81 times, I do X" and "81
times, I perform the following action: I do X" Is it not the same thing? Would
it be if it was "81 times: I do X" instead?
--
secretsnail
DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Fri, 2022-07-15 at 17:31 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a Motion to Reconsider CFJ 3978.
> (Or ais523 could just self-file and address this which would be cool.)
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 2:52 PM ais523 via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > The text used by the author was "81 times, I submit the following
> > proposal:". The meaning of "the following proposal" seems fairly clear
> > that it refers to only a single proposal, so this was an attempt to
> > submit one proposal multiple times.
>
> This assumption fails to consider a clearly possible reading: it was an
> attempt to submit a proposal with the following attributes 81 times, not
> submit the same proposal 81 times.
This reading is clearly impossible, due to what "the" means in English.
In order to force this reading, you'd have to write something like "81
times, I perform the following action: {{{ I submit the following
proposal: … }}}", which is a long way away from what you actually
wrote, and I don't think this is a plausible reading of what you
actually wrote (especially when it has a very clear natural meaning).
What you wrote is probably not what you actually meant to write, but
that doesn't have much of a bearing on how actions by announcement
work.
--
ais523
