============================== CFJ 1916 ==============================
In the quoted message, Iammars consented to something.
Called by omd: 13 Mar 2008 01:57:21 GMT
Assigned to Zefram: 13 Mar 2008 04:37:31 GMT
Judged FALSE by Zefram: 13 Mar 2008 22:54:40 GMT
E said that e *would* consent, not that e was doing so...
Gratuitous Evidence by omd:
[Iammars' message to a-d, referenced by the statement of this CFJ]
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Taral wrote:
> > On 3/12/08, Roger Hicks wrote:
> > > Ho-hum...I guess no one else is interested.
> > I thought the change was made?
> Murphy's was, mine is still awaiting one more support. So far I have
> the consent of Murphy, Ivan Hope, and root.
Judge Zefram's Arguments:
It has been pointed out that the message in question was sent to a
discussion forum, not to a public forum. I find this irrelevant.
The meaning of a message does not change according to the forum it
is posted in, or at least it does not vary in this case, where the
same notational and interpretive conventions apply to both fora.
Publicity of a message is significant in situations where rules or
contracts specifically require publicity, of course, but in this case
there is no such requirement. Clause 14 of the AAA contract requires
"consent" of various people to amend it; it does not specify "public
consent" or state that consent can only be manifested by announcement.
As with judicial panels, consent can be manifested informally.
(More of a concern with clause 14 is that it does not specify any
*mechanism* for amending the contract, but only gives permission.
The contract therefore probably can't be amended from within. If it is
unamendable then my references to clause 14 in this message are actually
wrong because the amendment that purportedly moved the self-amendment
provision there didn't happen. In that case my references to clause 14
should instead be read as references to clause 18.)
Iammars's statement "I'll consent." came in the context (supplied by
quotation) of a discussion about consent being lacking for a particular
amendment to the AAA contract. It clearly expressed an intent to
consent to the amendment, and we have traditionally allowed considerable
latitude in expression. However, Iammars's message does not clearly
indicate *present* consent, as the initiator of this CFJ has pointed out.
It's expressed in the future tense, and taken literally indicates that
Iammars will consent at some future time.
Such an expression can sometimes be loosely interpreted as indicating
a present action. However, I find that that is not the only sensible
interpretation of Iammars's message. At most, giving the present-consent
interpretation the greatest feasible credence, there is an ambiguity
in the statement, so "I'll consent." is not a valid R754(1) synonym for
Taking Iammars's statement as a statement about the future, e might
well have fulfilled that statement by consenting by now. On the other
hand e might not have yet. Eir statement is not sufficiently specific
to determine at what future time e will have consented, and so it will
probably never be adequate evidence of consent having been granted.
In any case, for this CFJ I do not have to rule on whether Iammars
has consented by now. I only have to rule on whether e consented
in the message in question, which e did not in any adequate manner.
I judge FALSE.