On 3/25/24 18:10, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 3/16/24 22:08, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> So, a potential point of disagreement here is what *exactly* this >> standard is requiring. Importantly, I think it's unclear whether the >> requirement for the "specification of the method" includes a requirement >> for the specification to be labelled as the "specification of the method". > Is there precedent for us requiring things to be labeled? The > disclaimers for No Faking don't need to be labeled as disclaimed, for > instance. > > I don't think it needs to be labeled, so I do think that's a potential > scam currently (that could be easily rectified by improving the > requirement, which we should do anyway). >
If we had an action that required specifying two things, it'd have to be clear which is which, at least? But it's true that for by announcement actions we don't require a specific labeling if it's clear what the overall action is (e.g. "I initiate CFJ on X" rather than "I initiate a CFJ with statement X"). I think that's a justifiable reading, and given that I won't dispute it. (But I still think we should work on ratifying everything anyway, which I'll look into when I get a chance.) -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
