============================== CFJ 1647 ==============================
Murphy's message with datestamp Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:59:19 -0700 had the effect of submitting a proposal. ======================================================================== According to Rule 106/4: A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. The text in Murphy's message outlines the enactment of a rule, so it does meet the criteria for a proposal. Rule 106/4 continues, "A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal." The message was sent to a public forum, so it was published by definition. The only question is whether there was a clear indication that it was intended to become a proposal. The purported proposal included the heading "Proposal: Protection Racket", followed by the body of the proposal. This style of proposal submission is not uncommon, and under normal circumstances it would constitute the "clear indication" required by Rule 106. However, this case is complicated by two facts: the proposal was preceded in the message by a (mis-referenced) attempt to withdraw an existing proposal, and the remainder of the message was identical in to that of the message in which the existing proposal was submitted. Could this reasonably have been interpreted as merely a further description of the proposal to be removed? If so, then the message lacked "clear indication". I believe the answer to that question is "yes". It is not unheard of to reference a proposal using the full text of the proposal or its submission message, especially when the proposal's number has not yet been published, as appears to have been the case here. It is not necessary that such a reference include "Reply" markings or indentation, as the message may be a result of cut-and-paste. There was no clear indication that the message was intended as only a single action, but there was also no clear indication that it was intended as two separate actions. Therefore, I pseudo-judge CFJ 1647 to be FALSE. -root
