On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, comex wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Sean Hunt<ride...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Doesn't matter; the lack just needs to be pointed out. > > It needs to be "identified". > > On the one hand, if I personally identify a lack of information in the > message (realize that there is a lack of information), but don't > mention it to anyone, it shouldn't block ratification. > > On the other, if I announce the lack to a Public Forum, it definitely should. > > But the boundary line is unclear. What if I privately mention it to > someone? Or mention it in ##nomic, where 3 or 4 people might usually > notice? Or in a DF, which, by CFJ, counts as notifying > most-but-not-all players? > > If there's no precedent to the contrary, I'd like to draw the line at > the public forum, or notifying all players.
Nope. CFJ 2615. The specific precedent is that even pointing it out informally in ##nomic counts. It's a stupid precedent (I gave a gratuitous argument for the exact same dividing line that you propose). Given the stupid precedent, you should fix the rule to make "identify" into a COE. -G.
