On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > It discusses shorthand which I almost used exactly and discusses what the
> > shorthand could mean,
> No it doesn't. It discusses a couple of possible wordings, but the
> shorthand wording it discusses is specifically "Proposal:",
It discusses one shorthand specifically:
Proposals (including this one), are usually styled as follows
"Title:
Coauthors
AI
Text"
and that's pretty much exactly the shorthand I used. Not "Proposal:" which
I have no idea where you even found. It is this shorthand the judge
discusses.
this case turns on what that shorthand
actually means. It could mean one of two things. "I create a proposal with
the following Title, Coauthors, AI, and Text properties". [Or it means] "I
create a proposal with the following text. I optionally specify an AI. I
optionally specify a Title. I optionally specify coauthors"
Since I did use this shorthand, and it could mean those things, I am
suggesting my shorthand means one of those things, which seems
perfectly fine to me.
> > "I create a proposal with the following Title, Coauthors, AI, and Text
> > properties" being a possibility, just as I argued before.
> That's only a suggestion for what "Proposal:" might mean.
>
Again this is just incorrect, it's one of two possibilities for what the
shorthand what I used could mean, not "Proposal:"
> The judge of CFJ 3744 specifically found that "I
> create this proposal" has a different meaning from "I create a proposal
> with the following attributes and text" (in the case of CFJ 3744, the
> latter wording was used, and the creation failed because it was
> impossible for a proposal to have the stated attributes).
>
Not exactly that it has a "different meaning" but a more precise meaning:
while "I create this proposal" could be either of the two mentioned
possibilities, "I create a proposal with the following attributes and text"
is definitively one of those possibilities. But this is a special case
because of the incorrect attribute: if it had been correct, both phrases
would have the same effect, as the two possibilities would be essentially
the same.
> > "I create this proposal" and "I submit the following proposal"
> > would be basically the same if create and submit are synonyms, and the
> > judge interterpetted "I create this proposal: {Shorthand}" as having two
> > possible meanings, both of which would mean my creations of proposals
> > succeeded, as they were essentially the same as Jason's.
>
> Neither of those wordings could succeed in creating multiple proposals,
> because they both use language that can only be used to apply to a
> single proposal.
"I create this proposal: {shortand}" actually means "I create a proposal
with the following Title, Coauthors, AI, and Text properties" or the other
similar meaning, which can be used to apply to multiple identical proposals.
> Are you seriously trying to argue that "Twice, I create this proposal:
> {proposal}" is capable of creating two different proposals?
Yes. That's how I read it naturally, and it isn't contradicted by the
rules. The CFJ implies "I create this proposal" can mean it's talking about
the attributes in {proposal}, not an actual proposal entity. So of course,
this would make two proposals, one created slightly after the other, that
are identical. The same proposal created twice, once and then again
slightly after, so there are two of them.
Some further proof that "this proposal" isn't actually a proposal from Rule
1607 (Distribution):
The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the
Proposal Pool, along with their text and attributes.
This suggests the text and attributes posted when creating a proposal are
not the proposal itself.
> (whether two proposals are the same
> entity is important because, e.g., putting a proposal into the proposal
> pool, then putting the same proposal into the proposal pool, won't lead
> to it being in there twice, just like transferring the same nonfungible
> asset to someone twice won't lead to them having two copies of it).
>
The latter example, you could totally do that if you created the
nonfungible asset again first, which is basically what happens when you
create a new proposal to be added to the pool. Then they'd have two copies
of the same entity. (Side note, we really ought to have some kind of vague
definition for an entity, even if it doesn't cover everything, just so we
can have some agreement. There's probably plenty of precedent about the
nature of entities that could be used. This case could be an example.)
--
secretsnail
