ais523 wrote:
On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 15:05 -0400, omd wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Henri Bouchard <[email protected]> wrote:
I CfJ: The Assessor, scshunt, failed to end the voting period for
proposals 7641-7642 in 7 days, thereby violating Rules 107 and 2143.
Scshunt has therefore committed the Class-2 Crime of Tardiness.
I bar scshunt.
CFJ: CFJ 3408 is assigned to omd.
Evidence: the above-quoted message, that has the title "OFF: [Arbitor]
CFJ 3408 assigned to omd", but does not list anything but the text of
the CFJ in the body of the message.
Arguments: I think (this is from memory, I may be wrong) we've decided
that the subject line is sufficient to assign a number to the CFJ, on
the basis that it causes general agreement as to which CFJ the number
refers to. Is it also sufficient to assign a judge? Nothing in the body
contradicts it, but nothing in the body refers to the subject either,
which is normally too low a standard to perform an action by
announcement.
Precedent is something like "the subject line may provide context,
provided it doesn't contradict the body". Arguably, for a reply with
subject = an action (particularly one that fulfills a duty) and body =
nothing but quoted text, it makes more sense to interpret "they intended
to do that and it was effective" than "they missed adding to the body
and also changed the subject in a curiously specific but nevertheless
ineffective manner".
