Index ← 3781 CFJ 3782 3783 → text
===============================  CFJ 3782  ===============================

      There is a proposal in the proposal pool with the title
      "Swimming".

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

Caller:                        G.

Judge:                         Falsifian
Judgement:                     TRUE

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

History:

Called by G.:                                     02 Dec 2019 21:33:56
Assigned to Falsifian:                            07 Dec 2019 17:12:42
Judged TRUE by Falsifian:                         09 Jan 2020 18:00:22

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

Caller's Evidence:

On 12/2/2019 1:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I submit the following Proposal, "Swimming", AI=1:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I withdraw my proposal "Swimming" from the Proposal Pool.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------


Caller's Arguments:

CFJ 3780 revolves around this text:
> Election speech: "CFJ: I am a candidate for Prime Minister."

The CFJ question was whether a text published in quotes or delimiters
for one stated purpose (an "election speech") would succeed in another
stated purpose (calling a CFJ).

At first I thought this was pretty trivial because we've allowed this
before.  We've considered it "successful" when a person buried an Apathy
intent inside an Officer's report for example (before the "unobfuscated"
standard was added for intents), and at least once in my memory I put some
actions in text labeled as a "formal apology" and no one questioned that
it served both as the apology and as successfully performing the contained
actions.

But then I thought of the Proposal situation, where the usual intent in
submitting text is for the text to take effect at a later date - but
nothing in the rules says that explicitly really. And maybe the proposal
example demonstrates the danger of allowing double-acting text like this.

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

Judge Falsifian's Arguments:

The key question here is whether the text "I withdraw my proposal
"Swimming" from the Proposal Pool." had the effect of withdrawing the
proposal.

Publishing text containing an announcement does not always entail
making that announcement. Rule 478 says:

> Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by
> announcement", that person performs that action by unambiguously and
> clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.

Even if G.'s message contained an announcement that G. withdrew eir
proposal, it was certainly not an unambiguous one. Therefore, G. did
not withdraw the proposal in the quoted message.

(Note: in a discussion thread, I suggested that the rule text could be
parsed as applying "unambiguously and clearly" only to "specifying the
action". Thinking about it more, though, it seems unlikely to me that
the text was intended that way, since I think that text was intended to
require by-announcement actions to be clear and unambiguous as a
whole.)

Some other examples where publishing the text of an announcement
doesn't constitute announcing it:

* Quoting text in email replies. We do this all the time; nobody thinks
  we're repeating those actions by doing so.

* Judges quoting text as evidence.

* Publishing hypothetical examples. I wasn't easily able to find
  examples of this (the judge's arguments in CFJ 3751 contain
  hypothetical message text, but in that case the point is that it
  wouldn't work), but I'd be surprised if there aren't any public
  messages containing hypotheticals that nobody thought actually had
  any effect.

I judge CFJ 3782 TRUE.

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