> 3630   Assigned to G.          (due Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:10:44)

CFJ statement:
>       In the below message, Cuddlebeam supported one or more intents.


Evidence ("below message" of CFJ statement including context):
> On 3/2/2018 4:30 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >
> > I do as stated in this video to both of those intents:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHuE--FSIr4&feature=youtu.be&t=5s
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Corona <liliumalbum.agora at gmail.com> 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh well.
> > >
> > > I intend to award the title of Champion by Politics to Aris with 2 Agoran
> > > Consent.
> > >
> > > I intend to award the (new) title of Reformist Bug to Trigon with 2 Agoran
> > > Consent.‚Äč


I deliver the following Judgement on CFJ 3630:

We have at times allowed vital context in announcement-based actions to
be contained outside of the public message text itself.  This includes
context contained in subject lines and outside references (i.e. web 
links).  What standards should be applied to judge such actions
successful?  I offer the following.

1.  The message text itself must contain a clear indication of an 
attempt to perform an action.

This is needed so it is clearly stated in the public-forum message that
an action is being performed (this is consistent with past precedents on
subject lines).  A mere link alone would be insufficient.  In this case,
CuddleBeam clearly states that e "does as stated in this video" so it's
clear an action is being attempted in the message text itself, so eir
message passes this test.


2.  The referenced material must have a clear relation to the action
attempt.

In this case, the link goes directly to a word "support" in a video,
both spoken and written, and "support" is a clear and legal response
to an intent with 2 Agoran Consent that is directly cited by CuddleBeam,
so there is no ambiguity in the intended action.  So eir message passes 
this test.


3.  There should be a strong presumption (I will say a preponderance of
evidence is an appropriate standard) that the link content itself can
not be changed by the actor after sending the message, and that the link
will persist for a sufficient length of time for all players to
interpret the action.

I viewed the video within 24 hours of CuddleBeam sending it, and have
viewed it again now (~10 days later).  It is a commercial and 
professional video that is unlikely to be under CuddleBeam's control,
and the information is likely to persist for the length of time needed
(e.g. 14 days for the intent, and at least a month after that for any
questions/interpretations).  Therefore the link passes the test.

I judge TRUE.



Reply via email to