Additional arguments: See CFJ 3409. It lists the following as tests of subject
line action effectiveness:
1. Are there multiple actions that can be inferred? No.
2. Is there a real doubt as to what is intended?. No.
3. Is timing an issue? (multiple events in the message). No.
4. Is anything purposefully obfuscated? No.
5. Does the message text infer the type of action that can be
made clear from the subject line? Not necessarily.
This is the main point where the uncertainty comes in.
I call for a decision of TRUE, as 4 of these 5 questions would lead to it being
TRUE.
On 11/2/2017 1:25 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
Arguments: TRUE; CFJ 2916, in which Wooble was found not to be a player (that
time, anyway).
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 at 13:22 Benjamin Schultz <ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com
<mailto:ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:34 AM, ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com
<mailto: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
