On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:41 PM Reuben Staley via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/11/20 8:33 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/11/20 10:15 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote: > >> Title: Agora plays table tennis > >> AI: 1.7 > >> Author: Trigon > >> Coauthors: > >> > >> Create a new rule entitled "Ping Pong" with Power=1.7 that reads: > >> > >> The first public message sent by a player each Agoran day must > >> begin with the word ping (case-insensitive). The second public > >> message sent by a player each Agoran day must end with the word > >> pong (case-insensitive). > >> > >> If a player fails to include ping or pong as mandated by the > >> previous paragraph, then, in that same Agoran day, any player > CAN > >> once revoke one coin from em. > > > > > > Sounds interesting, but why is the rule at power 1.7 and not something > > like 0.1? > > Because in an earlier draft it was going to be blots but I decided that > would be maybe a bad idea. > > I retract the quoted proposal and submit the following in its place: > > --- > Title: Agora plays table tennis > AI: 0.1 > Author: Trigon > Coauthors: > > Create a new rule entitled "Ping Pong" with Power=0.1 that reads: > > The first public message sent by a player each Agoran day must > begin with the word ping (case-insensitive). The second public > message sent by a player each Agoran day must end with the word > pong (case-insensitive). > > If a player fails to include ping or pong as mandated by the > previous paragraph, then, in that same Agoran day, any player CAN > once revoke one coin from em. > > -- > Trigon > I call the following CFJ: "In the above message, Trigon created a proposal" The relevant precedent is CFJ 3744 where it said that it was up to the specific speech act as to whether a proposal that was submitted with an invalid AI failed entirely or defaulted to 1.0 AI. The speech in that case was found clear, but the speech in this case is very different (and much closer to the default way that most people create proposals). Per CFJ 3744, if this message _really_ means ""I create a proposal with the following Title, Coauthors, AI, and Text properties" then the proposal would entirely fail, whereas it would succeed with AI=1 if the message _really_ means ""I create a proposal with the following text. I optionally specify an AI. I optionally specify a Title. I optionally specify coauthors" What's the answer to which speech action the author really means here? I have no idea, which is why I left the question open in CFJ 3744. It is up to the judge to decide, I suppose. -- >From R. Lee
