On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 7:39 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-07-17 at 19:30 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 7:17 PM ais523 via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > CoE: the proposal referred to as "8817" above doesn't exist. Adding > > > a proposal that's already in the proposal pool to the proposal pool > > > has no effect, it doesn't just duplicate the proposal. > > > > > > In order to prevent an infinite loop of CoEs and denials (required from > > > my side to prevent self-ratification of a false statement, and from > > > your side by the requirement to respond to a CoE), I suggest you > > > initiate or cite a CFJ (3978 could be a good option). > > If I cite a cfj then it will forever be doubted, though... > > > > Oh well, I cite CFJ 3978 in response to the quoted CoE. (But I do deny > this > > claim in my head.) > > > > (Insert joke about you creating the same CoE twice) > > They necessarily have to be two different CoEs, despite having the same > wording, because there was a point in time at which the first one was > denied but the second one wasn't. > It really just depends on how you define "different". If they are the same, they could have just both been denied when I denied the first one. You don't have to exist to be preemptively denied. You could also interpret this as being when the second CoE was issued, it inherited the denial from the first one, since they are the same. A weirder issue, though, is if they are the same CoE, that CoE may not exist, since a CoE is a doubt, and when you deny a doubt, it ceases to be a doubt... so you may not be able to issue it again, since it's no longer a doubt. -- secretsnail
