Yeah, I misread the CFJs. -Aris
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > On both? From your argument, it sounds like the proposal text contains the > comment (second CFJ true) but it is stripped when adopting. > > That’s a good enough answer for me. I retract those CFJs. > > Gaelan > >> On Aug 25, 2017, at 10:26 PM, Aris Merchant >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Arguments: Proposals are written is human readable text. It is >> generally accepted that language is to be interpreted in accordance >> with the perceptions of the writer/reader(s), because linguistic >> meaning is a matter of convention. The average Agoran understands that >> in this context square brackets indicate comments and are stripped >> from the text when it is adopted/resolved. I therefore believe that >> these CFJs should be judged FALSE, in accordance with game custom, >> common sense, and possibly the interests of the game. >> >> -Aris >> >>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: >>> I CFJ on these linked two statements, spending 1 AP each and barring >>> Cuddlebeam: >>> >>> The rule “Assets” contains the text “[To provide for private contract based >>> assets later]” >>> >>> Proposal 7864 “Assets v7” contained the text “[To provide for private >>> contract based assets later]” >>> >>> — >>> >>> Common sense dictates that the square-bracketed section should have been >>> stripped at some point, but no rules specify this.
