On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 18:51, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > 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.
I agree that the quoting is close to #2, but I think there's ambiguity in the quoted version that's not in #2. It looked intentionally ambiguous to me, maybe because twg included it in the same message as the ambiguous "And my axe!" statement the alleged CFJ was about. -- - Falsifian
