On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:34 AM, ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Let's test the limits of how far subject line actions can go... > Feel free to CFJ. > > > Challenge accepted. > > I CFJ on the following statement: ATMunn bought a Stamp in the referenced > message (posted on or about 2 Nov 2017 14:34 Z). > I submit ATMunn's message as evidence. > > I argue for a decision of FALSE. Agoran practice is that the content of a > message matters. > > OscarMeyr
The just-delivered CFJ 3584 reviewed several precedents and set a strong bias for the other direction (TRUE): https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-November/036845.html That case used a set of tests suggested in CFJ 3509: > 1. Are there multiple actions that can be inferred? > 2. Is there a real doubt as to what is intended? > 3. Is timing an issue? (multiple events in the message). > 4. Is anything purposefully obfuscated? > 5. Does the message text infer the type of action that can be made clear > from the subject line? In this case, I think the message passes tests 1-3. On (4), it is clear that ATMunn puposefully left any suggestion of action out of the message body for the purpose of testing the limits, so it might fail that one. On (5), there is is nothing in the message body to infer the type of action in question. On the other hand, there is a clear note to look at the subject line to infer *some* kind of action, which the subject line makes pretty clear.
