On 7/5/2020 9:32 AM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > On 2020-07-05 4:25 p.m., Falsifian via agora-business wrote: >>> I object to the above announcement of intent. This may do nothing. >>> >>> >>> I CFJ: Regardless of other supporters/objectors, Agora will not be >>> satisfied with the above intent for ~48 hours, due to the Speaker >>> objecting. >>> >>> >>> Arguments: >>> >>> I objected to this intent on Friday, withdrew the objection on Sunday, >>> and >>> objected again (maybe) in the above announcement on Monday. >>> >>> R2124 reads in part: >>>> The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent >>>> if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. >>> >>> Here, "objected" is used as a verb. But in the early part of R2124, >>> it reads: >>> >>>> An Objector to an intent to perform >>>> an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not >>>> withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent. >>> >>> This leaves it very unclear whether the verb "to object" refers to >>> "publicly posting an objection" (which is the natural language reading, >>> and can be done many times) or whether it means "becomes an objector" >>> (which can't be done if an objection has been previously withdrawn). >> >> Gratuitous: >> >> The interpretation of the word "objected" as meaning "became an >> objector" seems very unnatural to me. The ordinary English meaning of >> "to object" almost certainly doesn't mean that; for example, "repeatedly >> objected", is not an uncommon combination of words. >> >> The rules do introduce a new definition, "Objector". It is natural to >> assume "an objector" is one who has "objected", and based on that, we >> could try to work backward from the Agoran definition of "objector" to >> figure out what it means to "object". Your two suggested definitions are >> equally consistent with "Objector" meaning someone who has "objected", >> but one definition is very unnatural and the other is the simple English >> definition. > > Also, I'm confused. You say you had withdrawn an objection before > posting that message with the CFJ. Doesn't that mean that by posting > that message, you went from being being not an objector to being an > objector again? Is there any possible ambiguity about that? And since > you did become an objector again, what definition of "object" could > possibly not include that?
There's a few readings of this text: > An Objector to an intent to perform > an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not > withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent. 1. Each withdrawal is matched to the objection you're withdrawing. In which case you're correct. Pretty trivial. 2. If I've withdrawn Objection #1, and then post Objection #2, it's still true that I've withdrawn Objection #1. So the question on whether I've withdrawn "an objection" is still true for #1 and will always be true (because I can't "withdraw my withdrawal" even if I object again). And thus #2 wouldn't make me an objector. I think at least some of us are playing under this assumption. 3. You can "publicly post" an objection, but there's no mention on how withdrawal is done (in public, or what?). So you can never withdraw objections anyway, it's impossible. I don't have strong arguments for any of these but my sense was that people assumed we were using interpretation 2, just from some of the discussions. I don't know if there are cfjs that brought it up before. But if we're using interpretation 2, "objecting" in a public post is sometimes decoupled from whether it makes you an "objector". -G.
