On 10/20/23 17:18, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 5:11 PM nix via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/23 17:09, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 4:46 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
>>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2023-10-20 at 16:37 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I deny this CoE. The proposals were not submitted. You said "I submit
>> the
>>>>> following 3 proposals" and proceeded to list 4 proposals, so the action
>>>> was
>>>>> not clearly and unambiguously specified as required for by-announcement
>>>>> actions.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't "following 3" unambiguously specify the next 3 proposals to
>>>> appear in the message?
>>>>
>>>> The main ambiguity is as to whether the fourth proposal was also
>>>> submitted via specifying it in the message, without a speech action
>>>> specifically saying so.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ais523
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's 4 following proposals, though, and it doesn't specify which 3 of
>>> them are to be submitted. CFJ time?
>>> --
>>> snail
>>
>> "The following three" would seem to me to be the immediate three following.
>>
>> --
>> nix
>>
>>
> This seems about the same as changing a rule by saying "Add the following
> sentence: Things are a currency. Things are tracked by the Thinger." Which
> would fail to do anything because "any ambiguity" is present (I think this
> has been held before). There's the same ambiguity here.
> --
> snail
I think the formatting matters. If the formatting was:
{
Add the following sentence:
Things are a currency.
Things are tracked by the Thinger.
}
I don't think there's ambiguity. The third sentence isn't "the following
sentence", so it's not added. The way you wrote it, it does seem less
clear. The situation we're discussing is more similar to how I wrote it,
in my opinion.
--
nix
