On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Sean Hunt <scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> I don't see how this custom can be described as weak-- you are just
>> about to cite four different CFJs where it was decided (and gameplay
>> proceeded assuming) that subject lines aren't effective. Such
>> repeated tests make for a quite strong custom IMO.
>
> One judge said roughtly that "my understanding is that game custom is..."
> which is hardly convincing at all, and the rest just seemed to cite it
> blindly as precedent without addressing it.
I think the blindness of the citation should itself be convincing. If
the judge, and the game in general at the time of the judgement, is
fairly sure of the custom already, only a cursory look at past
judgements is necessary, generally not with a view to overturn them.
If it's a more contentious point, the past judgements need to be
examined in more detail to ensure they actually apply to the current
situation. *shrug*
> Because these cases are the best-reasoned of the ones examined, in my
> opinion, and the quality of reasoning is definitely a metric to measure by.
tbh I don't think the judgement in CFJ 2452 was very well reasoned.
>> It should be denied status because it is malformed.
>
> Messages with empty body are entirely permissible per the email spec, and
> indeed they often happen. If you consider the body to be the entire message,
> then yes, you cannot take anything from that, but there is no basis within
> the rules for that decision.
It is syntactically well-formed but semantically malformed. The
"Subject" is being used as a body ("the main, central, or principal
part", from merriam-webster.com), while the "body" is blank. Or to
quote RFC 822:
4.7.1. SUBJECT
This is intended to provide a summary, or indicate the
nature, of the message.
>> In Gmail, the From header is prominently displayed in the interface,
>> but the Cc header is not shown unless you click "show details".
>>
>> Arguments:
>> Like the Subject header, both the From and Cc headers are intended for
>> metadata rather than actual message content.
>
> Arguments: I think it's FALSE; while it may be either that the first
> succeeded and the second did, or vice versa, I find it hard to believe the
> first will succeed but the second will not.
I'm pretty sure the second failed because of what I said about "show
details"-- a moron in a hurry would not know I was trying to take an
action there, especially as the message body is somewhat misleading
about its purpose. (Actually, I could probably be NoVed for
truthfulness there, although it wasn't my intention.)
