On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 09:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 02:50 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > As Secretary, it is my pleasure to report that Agora has paid the > > > following salaries to players: > > > > CoE: This first attempt at making the report was inaccurate (and was > > withdrawn by its author). See the second attempt for details on what > > was wrong. > > > > (This message brought to you by the fact that being withdrawn by its > > author is not enough to prevent a message self-ratifying. In the > > future, try CoEing your own reports if they're wrong.) > > o used the phrase "it inaccurately describes payments made to former > players." when e withdrew eir report. > > This was a clear claim that the document was in error. > > This was clearly "an explicit public challenge via one of the > following methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope and > nature of a perceived error" (R2201) > > The words "claim of error" don't actually need to be used to make it one. > > In fact, by labeling "Claim of Error", you're technically using the same > ISID that you said yesterday didn't work for me (i.e. claiming that you > claim something, rather than just claiming it).
You're missing the "via one of the following methods", I think. Being a claim of error is defined as a mechanism, not a description. If point 2. wasn't there, would you say that o's statement automatically initiated a CFJ? If not, then why does it automatically initiate a CoE? -- ais523
