Yes, I agree. Otherwise we'd have to assume that if you just replied
to yourself in BUS, every action in quotes would be re-done. (And
that's specifically why you need to append a TTTTPF rather than just
forwarding from DIS to BUS without comment). I'd define the unclarity
as "unclear whether you were quoting yourself or doing something new".
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> If I were judge, I'd say it failed according to your third theory.
> Nothing marks that this is something that's actually being done in the
> present, rather than a use of the historical present tense. The
> interests of the game seem to agree with me, which is relevant for
> interpretation according to Rule 217. I could go either way on this
> case though.
>
> -Aris
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:32 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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” . . .
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
