My current view is that this is consistent with the newly reiterated CFJ on clarity.
Under the current text of the Rule, the intended action must be clear and unambiguous, but there is not any current requirement that the *announcement of intent* itself be made clearly or conspicuously. The new proposal should address that, but I think this apathy declaration might have worked in the meantime... Anyone else have a view? On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:19 AM D Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > :-D > > I think there are a bunch of reasonable outcomes to this CFJ. > > 1. Maybe the intent is clear and unambiguous, despite where it is placed > in the message, because the sentence itself is written in the customary > Agoran way of stating an intent and it was not preceded by a “>” (the > customary way of indicating a quoted message). > > 2. The intent isn’t clear because it was embedded in the “history” portion > of the message, and actions placed there are always ipso facto “unclear” > because obfuscated. > > 3. The intent isn’t clear because it was placed in the “history” portion > of the message and wasn’t specifically and clearly designated to be a new > message separate from the surrounding history. > > I could see any of these being right, and I’m not sure they’re resolved by > the recent apathy CFJ that is presently under reconsideration. Maybe #3 > strikes the right balance. > > > On Oct 3, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote: > > > > Notice of Honour > > > > +1 D. Margaux (managing to sneak this one past me) > > -1 Kenyon (arbitrarily selected zombie) > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > >> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 12:43 PM, D Margaux < > dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> From my email of 29 Sep 2018 at 8:34 AM ET: > >> > >>> i intend without objection to declare ap- > >>> athy specifying d margaux > >> > >> Having heard no objection, I declare apathy specifying D. Margaux. > >> > >> CFJ barring Aris: “D. Margaux’s declaration of apathy in this message > was EFFECTIVE.” > >> > >> Thought it was worth exploring another situation where definition may > be needed tor “clear,” “unambiguous,” and “clear and unambiguous” . . . > > > > >
