That CFJ is actualy where I got the idea to do this from.
It's also how I found out about CFJ 3409.
On 11/2/2017 1:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
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.
