I love the proposal, I just I dislike the ambiguity because it might defuse it and then there's no fun lol
I like the whitespace angle too, it opens the doors to another style of "paradox" (and scam, quite likely). Maybe we could figure out a way to make L||R more watertight and resubmit it. On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:44 AM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > > This may actually suggest a general principle for avoiding ambiguities > > like this one: as the formatting of text is irrelevant, an attempt to > > specify something in a way that doesn't have a clear "start-to-finish" > > order is failing to uniquely specify the text in question, and thus is > > too ambiguous to work. > > First, non-"start-to-finish" text has been allowed to have effects > before: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1267 > > But here's the new bit! The following text that was added to R106 in > July this year: > > > Clearly marked comments are considered > > to be removed from the proposal before it takes effect, unless > > otherwise stated by the proposal. > > (at least that's the text I was trying to get at, D. Margaux's Bleach > argument is a clever alternative). > > The thing is, marking comments often relies on textual formatting, at > least for end-of-line comments (not so much for parenthetical comments, > perhaps). So what does the "marking" in "clearly marking" mean? Can > we use formatting clues? (formatting clues *do* "mark" things). And > if a comment marks itself as a comment (but it is otherwise "considered > removed") it might still count as a comment "before" it is removed. > > Ignoring the rest of the rules and focusing on this clause, I could > imagine at least four outcomes: > > 1. The comments are ambiguous, therefore not "clearly marked", > therefore nothing in the proposal is removed, and there's enough > textual clarity (e.g. the marks demonstrated intended readings) in > both halves that both halves are effective. > > 2. As #1, but you're forced to read L to R which leads to > ineffective nonsense. > > 3. The comments mark each other, and then are considered removed, > so the whole thing is a big comment and does nothing. > > 4. Similar to CFJ 1267, we decide that one portion is "naturally in > front" of the other (probably the left portion, given CFJs 3534-3535) > and that portion succeeds in removing the other portion as a comment. > > > >
