On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 17:16, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > The below CFJ is 3782. I assign it to Falsifian.
Here are preliminary thoughts on CFJs 3780 and 3782. Comments welcome, especially precedent. R478 says performing a by-announcement action requires "unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it". In both cases, the player's message was ambiguous about whether e was actually performing the action. Intentionally ambiguous in the case of CFJ 3782, and maybe in the case of 3780. If we parse the rule text as "unambiguously and clearly (specifying the action and announcing that e performs it)", then I don't think this counts as "unambiguous" so it didn't work. If we parse it as "(unambiguously and clearly specifying the action) and announcing that e performs it", it's less clear. Judging that the actions did not take place is at least somewhat consistent with both ways of parsing, but judging that the actions did take place isn't. So I would judge 3780 FALSE and 3782 TRUE (i.e. the actions did not happen). I didn't spend much time looking for related cases, but a couple that I found through the FLR annotations: * CFJs 2179 and 2238 is about whether parameters of an action (sender in the case of 2179) must be unambiguous. They don't seem directly applicable. * CFJ 3409 (about an action taken in a subject line) laid out some possible tests of effectiveness. I think these cases both fail the "Is there a real doubt as to what is intended?" test. -- - Falsifian
