Index ← 3589 CFJ 3590 3634 → text
===============================  CFJ 3590  ===============================

      ATMunn bought a Stamp in the referenced message (posted on or
      about 2 Nov 2017 14:34 Z).

==========================================================================

Caller:                        OscarMeyr

Judge:                         o
Judgement:                     FALSE

==========================================================================

History:

Called by OscarMeyr:                              02 Nov 2017 18:21:00
Assigned to o:                                    04 Nov 2017 15:30:00
Judged FALSE by o:                                05 Nov 2017 06:43:00

==========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

I argue for a decision of FALSE. Agoran practice is that the content of a
message matters.


Caller's Evidence:
[Message as it appeared on the Arbitor's email reader]

From:     ATMunn 
Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
To:       agora-business@agoranomic.org
Date:     Thu, 2 Nov 2017 09:34:46 -0400       
Subject:  BUS: I buy a Stamp, transferring 6 shinies to Agora to do so.

Let's test the limits of how far subject line actions can go...
Feel free to CFJ.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge o's Arguments:

I find this CFJ to be FALSE.

The test given in CFJ 3409 is clear. Given the below message:

> From:     ATMunn 
> Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
> To:       agora-business@agoranomic.org
> Date:     Thu, 2 Nov 2017 09:34:46 -0400
> Subject:  BUS: I buy a Stamp, transferring 6 shinies to Agora to do so.
>
> Let's test the limits of how far subject line actions can go...
> Feel free to CFJ.

The arms of the test run as follows:

> 1.  Are there multiple actions that can be inferred?

No. There is a single action which can be inferred from the message,
including the subject line.

> 2.  Is there a real doubt as to what is intended?

No. The subject line of the message in question is crystal clear as to the
intended action, and the message body can only be interpreted, outside of
the rules, as an instruction to refer to the subject line.

> 3.  Is timing an issue?  (multiple events in the message).

No. Taking the subject line into account, the message could only contain
at most one action. Leaving the subject line out, it contains none. In
neither case is timing or ordering important.

> 4.  Is anything purposefully obfuscated?

No. Every relevant part of the message is plainly visible, without
extraordinary effort, in ordinary email clients.

> 5.  Does the message text infer the type of action that can be made
clear from the subject line?

Importantly, no. This is where ATMunn’s message fails the test: the
message body infers no actions at all.

There are two additional factors that suggest that subject-line-only
actions, such as ATMunn’s attempt here, should not be permitted in the
general case: historical convention and the interests of Agora as a whole.
Other than exceptions such as registration, which have historically
adhered to looser conventions than Agoran gameplay as a whole, the subject
line of a message has generally not been taken as part of the message.

This has three important safety properties. First, _replies_ to messages
cannot accidentally include attempts to perform the same action as the
original message’s sender, by automatically repeating the original
message’s subject line. Certainly, replying to ATMunn’s message on a
public forum should not imply that the respondant _also_, intentinoally, 
attempts to buy a stamp. Second, in cases where a message’s subject and
text are mutually contradictory, this convention provides a simple and
clear system for determining which of the two should take effect. Finally,
it completely avoids the question of when, within a larger message
containing multiple actions, the action contemplated in the message’s
subject line should occur.

I see no reason to overturn Agoran gameplay conventions at this time.
Given the above, I find the statement "ATMunn bought a Stamp in the
referenced message (posted on or about 2 Nov 2017 14:34 Z).” to be FALSE.

==========================================================================