On 6/30/2019 11:32 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
If a player does all that and also specifies that AI=e, I don't see why that makes the CAN clause fail.
It's impossible to create a Proposal with AI=0.5. If I say "I create the following proposal with AI=0.5" it's equally reasonably to say "no you didn't, that's IMPOSSIBLE to do and it fails" as it is to say "you got that half right - you made a proposal but it's a different (default) AI." With those being equally reasonable in a vacuum (IMO), we've tended in interpretation to err on the side of complete failure, for practical reasons. It's so much easier to simply say "whoops, no action, try again" then to say "you did it half-right and now we have to clean up the mess of the half-correct proposal." I'm not sure if there's a general principle here. For some things (like paying fees) we really stick with complete failure - e.g. if you try to pay a fee and only have 1/2 the number of coins, we don't say "you paid half and then fail to perform the action" - there's an implicit "if this fee can't be paid in full, it fails". On the other hand, let's say you call a CFJ and try to bar a non-person from judging for some silly reason. That "bar" fails, but I'm guessing we'd just let the CFJ go through - because the CFJ-calling and the barring are somewhat weakly connected. This is all to say - this seems like the sort of thing were some general principles/tests along the continuum of success/failure are worth figuring out.
