On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 09:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > > On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 02:50 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > > As Secretary, it is my pleasure to report that Agora has paid the > > > > following salaries to players: > > > > > > CoE: This first attempt at making the report was inaccurate (and was > > > withdrawn by its author). See the second attempt for details on what > > > was wrong. > > > > > > (This message brought to you by the fact that being withdrawn by its > > > author is not enough to prevent a message self-ratifying. In the > > > future, try CoEing your own reports if they're wrong.) > > > > o used the phrase "it inaccurately describes payments made to former > > players." when e withdrew eir report. > > > > This was a clear claim that the document was in error. > > > > This was clearly "an explicit public challenge via one of the > > following methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope > > and > > nature of a perceived error" (R2201) > > > > The words "claim of error" don't actually need to be used to make it one. > > > > In fact, by labeling "Claim of Error", you're technically using the same > > ISID that you said yesterday didn't work for me (i.e. claiming that you > > claim something, rather than just claiming it). > > You're missing the "via one of the following methods", I think. Being a > claim of error is defined as a mechanism, not a description. If point > 2. wasn't there, would you say that o's statement automatically > initiated a CFJ? If not, then why does it automatically initiate a CoE?
No, I'm not missing it. It's literally a claim that there was an error, and e did so. So e expressed a doubt through the method of claiming there was an error which is exactly what the rule says the method consists of (claim of error isn't even capitalized, while capitalization is generally inconsequential, it's support for it being a naturalistic thing that is done naturally by a claim that there is an error, not a term of art). I was going to say that "judgement" is a keyword which e didn't use. HOWEVER, now I see the Rule uses the term "inquiry case", which is no longer an official designation for a CFJ or associated with the CFJ system in any way... reading the rule without knowledge of history, one would have no idea what an "inquiry case" was... so, secondary problem there? (not that I think it truly breaks the rule, history is probably enough).
