On Mon, 2024-03-11 at 17:54 -0500, nix via agora-business wrote: > On 3/11/24 17:47, nix via agora-business wrote: > > I CFJ: The quotes message contains at least one game action. > > I number this CFJ 4071. I assign CFJ 4071 to ais523.
For context, the "quoted message" is: > This email contains no game actions. > > I CFJ: This CFJ exists. Rule 991 says: > Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement (CFJ, > syn. Judicial Case), specifying a statement to be inquired into by > announcement. Rule 478 says: > Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by > announcement", that person performs that action by, in a single > public message, specifying the action and setting forth intent to > perform that action by sending that message, doing both clearly > and unambiguously. The quoted message specifies an action, but does not unambiguously set forth intent to perform the action (due to the disclaimer that the message contains no actions, which makes it unclear what the intent behind specifying the action was). It is most likely from context that the message intended to be ambiguous about whether or not the action was being performed. By rule 478, that means that it wasn't. (See also CFJ 2133, which is based on an older version of the ruleset, but the same principles still apply.) I judge CFJ 4071 DISMISS due to the typo that causes its statement to be malformed. However, the answer to the question that the caller probably meant to ask is "no, that message didn't create a CFJ". (It's also possible that the caller was wondering whether the message might have performed actions other than creating a CFJ, e.g., whether publishing the disclaimer was itself an action. Rule 2466 implies that the ruleset draws a distinction between actions and messages, e.g. a general permission to take actions on behalf of someone still doesn't let you sent messages on eir behalf. The last paragraph of rule 2125 makes it irrelevant whether the *sending* of a message is an action or not, by clarifying that the ruleset cannot prevent the sending of a message, and by explicitly allowing the ruleset to criminalize the sending of certain messages regardless of whether doing so is an action – although, even if the sending of a message were an action, it would not be an action contained within the email itself. So the answer to the question of "does the message contain any actions at all, even actions other than the caling of a CFJ?" is "it at least doesn't contain any *relevant* actions".) -- ais523 Judge, CFJ 4071at least,
