On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:14 AM James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > 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 wholly agree for 3782 - the encapsulation of the action within a clearly-delimited proposal leaves it entirely in doubt whether execution of the action is intended. For 3780, though, the presence of the quotes is not encapsulating an official type of document like a proposal. I'd probably think through the following logic: 1. Saying 'CFJ: [statement]' is long-standing acceptable shorthand for 'I call a CFJ on [Statement].' In terms of precedent, there's a CFJ (which I'll have to look up later) that "Proposal: [text]" suitably implies "I submit a Proposal with the following text" and this seems similar. 2. So with that substitution, if you said 'As my campaign speech, I call a CFJ with the statement "I am a candidate".' I don't think anyone would have an issue with it. 3. The quoting in the actual statement seems close enough to #2 to work. (this is the "IMO" part, you might disagree here). -G.
