============================== CFJ 3026 ==============================
Agora is Satisfied with Wooble's recent intent to register with
Called by Murphy: 17 May 2011 20:51:07 GMT
Assigned to omd: 19 May 2011 02:49:44 GMT
Judged TRUE by omd: 19 May 2011 03:29:43 GMT
Here are all the questions of interpretation that I see:
1) Does support implicitly withdraw one's earlier objection?
2) When replying to two levels of quoted material without explicitly
specifying a target, is either level implicitly specified?
3) Do similar positive/negative phrases (e.g. FOR / AGAINST, favor /
disfavor) count as implicit support / objection?
[CotC: "see upcoming CFJ" was copy+pasted and refers to CFJ 3025]
To the best of my knowledge, here are all announcements
that might have counted as support and/or objection to the intent:
Roujo > I support or vote FOR, whichever is applicable.
ais523 > I object. I support.
omd > I support.
scshunt> [replying to ais523] I object to both of these.
ehird > I vote AGAINST.
G. > [replying to ais523] I favor this.
Roujo > [replying to G.] I object.
Tanner > I favor this intent.
Roujo > I support and do so.
ehird > I [something, see upcoming CFJ]
Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:
I was objecting to ais523's support and objection, not
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
Note that I interpreted many of the messages as
supporting/objecting to/favouring/etc. other player's
supports/objections, rather than Wooble's original intent. (It's
something of an Agoran tradition to have random supports/objections/etc.
in a-d in response to blank or test messages, in fact, the
interpretation of Roujo's "I support and do so" as anything but a
gameplay-irrelevant joke on the general theme didn't occur to me until
this spate of CFJs.)
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
I purposefully had no idea what I was intending to favor.
I think I was favoring the datestamp.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
Why would it?
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
Because, in ordinary language, support and objection are
mutually exclusive unless qualified (e.g. "I support sending troops to
Guilder but I object to having them shoot first").
Judge omd's Arguments:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Caller's Arguments:
> Here are all the questions of interpretation that I see:
> 1) Does support implicitly withdraw one's earlier objection?
No. In R2124, being a supporter-and-objector is just the natural
combination of being a supporter and being an objector; it stands to
reason that supporting-and-objecting should be the natural combination
of supporting and objecting, rather than requiring a new syntax.
> 2) When replying to two levels of quoted material without explicitly
> specifying a target, is either level implicitly specified?
Depends on context. In the case of scshunt's message:
>>> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to become a player.
>> I object. I support.
> I object to both of these.
"both of these" could refer to both Wooble's and ais523's *messages*
or both of ais523's actions-- probably the latter-- but it couldn't
possibly refer to Wooble's intent.
> 3) Do similar positive/negative phrases (e.g. FOR / AGAINST, favor /
> disfavor) count as implicit support / objection?
"FOR" certainly does, as the analogy between voting and supporting is
direct and obvious (in fact, supporting used to be a type of vote).
Based on the hint from ordinary language, and the different semantics
of favoring ("support" is more equivalent to "judge TRUE" than
"favor"), I'd say that "favor" does not.
So, based on Murphy's list, but (as the usual "support/objection goes
to the intent" assumption clearly cannot be applied here (especially
not to messages quoting "I yell CREAMPUFF")) disqualifying messages
that did not quote the intent:
Supporters: Roujo, ais523, omd
Objectors: ais523, ehird