Pienso que la declaración está efectiva por qué es probable que una proporción significativa de los miembros de Agora hablen español y esta acción está descrita en el texto en inglés. Si la explanación en inglés no está, pienso que la situación esté diferente.
> On Jun 2, 2020, at 21:34, ATMunn via agora-business > <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Yo transfiero una moneda a Agora. > > CFJ: En la declaración anterior, transferí una moneda a Agora. > > CFJ: In the above statement, I issued a Call for Judgement on whether > I transferred a coin to Agora in the statement preceding that one. > > Caller's Arguments (first [attempted] CFJ): If the second CFJ is judged > TRUE (arguments below), then the first attempted CFJ is, in fact, a CFJ. > By the precedent set by the second CFJ, the first should then be judged > TRUE. The only thing preventing it from being judged TRUE if the second > one is also is the fact that when put into Google Translate, the word > "moneda," intended to mean "coin," is translated as "currency." Because > of this, I think that the outcome of this CFJ should probably be linked > to the outcome of CFJ 3838. > > Caller's Arguments (second CFJ): Nothing in the rules states that > statements of intent must be in English. Rule 478 states that a person > performs an action by "unambiguously and clearly specifying the action > and announcing that e performs it." Though not everyone may be able to > understand Spanish, it is clear that the message is in Spanish, and, > when translated online, the message unambiguously and clearly specifies > the action. For this reason, I think that this CFJ should be judged > TRUE. However, an argument for judging it FALSE is that Agora has, since > its beginning, always been conducted in English. The actual statement > itself in its current form, therefore, could be interpreted as being > very unclear and ambiguous, since most readers will not understand its > meaning without a translator. > > [There's a good chance this has been tried before, but I thought I would > go ahead with it anyway. I opted not to try to use the Spanish for "Call > for Judgment" because a) I'm not that good at Spanish and b) it would > probably be more confusing. CFJ is an accepted standard abbreviation, so > I decided to stick with that.]
