On 7/2/20 4:21 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
> Arguments:
>
> at 12:43 AM, Becca Lee via agora-discussion
> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into
>> products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4.
> Your rephrased version is still self-contradictory to my ears. You didn’t
> say that you transferred 4 sets of 4 'out of' or ‘from’ those cards, or
> that you transferred 16 of the cards in 4 sets of 4, etc., but just that
> you transferred "those cards" “in 4 sets of 4”. That equates “those cards”
> with “4 sets of 4”.
They were paid, not transferred. I would not expect someone to specify
"I have $20. I take 18 out of that and break that into 3 sets of 6."
instead of "I have $20. I give 3 people $6 each."
>
> As an analogy, if an advertisement promised I could “pay the fee for this
> service in 4 installments of $40”, I would expect $160 to be the entire
> fee. I would be quite dismayed to hear that it was only part of the fee,
> and there was also, say, a $20 surcharge not included in the installments.
This might frustrate you but it would not be necessarily illegal. Nor is
it relevant to Agora.
>> this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually
>> harmful to gameplay.
> It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context.
And therefore, your CFJ is frivolous. There's plenty of context in that
message.
> It’s not at
> all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant.
> (You are lucky, however, that the “unambiguously and clearly specifying the
> action” standard from R478 seems to not apply here, so there may be more
> wiggle room for ambiguity.)
