==============================  CFJ 2581  ==============================

    Intents to perform multiple dependent actions were announced in the
    first message in the Evidence section, and each intent was resolved
    and made each Proposal in the Proposal Pool (at the time of
    resolution) distributable.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 G.
Barred:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Yally
Judgement:                              TRUE

========================================================================

History:

Called by G.:                           14 Jun 2009 01:58:59 GMT
Assigned to Yally:                      17 Jun 2009 07:41:48 GMT
Judged TRUE by Yally:                   21 Jun 2009 04:13:32 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

Making "each" proposal is not an action in itself, this requires multiple
dependent actions.

Dependent actions each must be specified "unamgibuously and clearly" which
is a stronger standard than simply without general confusion.  For example,
what if additional proposals entered the pool between the intent and the
resolution?  That would have created support before one of the intents
mapped to an actual action [see CFJ 2316].  CFJs 2238 is also relevant.
[I also seem to recall a precedent that set standards for "unambiguous and
clear" that are stronger than a mapping that "all" might apply to a changing
set, but I am not finding it at the moment -- gratuitous  suggestions very
welcome].

Therefore the argument is that the specification fails the "unambiguously
and clearly" test and thus the dependent action(s) failed, strongly
suggesting a judgement of FALSE.

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

comex wrote:
> I intend, with 3 support, to make each Proposal in the Proposal Pool
> distributable.

ehird wrote:
> I support. This is rather rubbish.

coppro wrote:
> I support.

Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
> I support and do so.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

In addition to R1728 requiring that an action be specified "unambiguously and
clearly", R1670/20 required that the proposal in question be "specified", so
that's a double layer of specification:
      A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Distributable with 3
      Support, or by spending 1 Note.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:

The specification for any given dependent action must be clear and
unamibiguous. This does not mean that a dependent action taken as part
of a larger set of actions is necessarily invalid due to ambiguity
existing in the larger set. Compare and contrast with Rule Changes,
which must be entirely unambiguous to take any effect. As a result, any
dependent actions to make Proposals made after the intent may be
ambiguous, but the ones before should not be.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

There was indeed at least one proposal that went into the pool between
the announcement of intent and the attempted resolution.  Ironically, it
was this one:

   > On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
   >> Proposal: No More Distributability (AI = 2, II = 2)

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by Yally:

CFJ 2517

========================================================================

Judge Yally's Arguments:

Although it is true that each of these actions are performed
separately, Agora has traditionally used shorthand to infer several
obvious actions. For example, players will frequently spend four notes
to destroy two rests they own. While technically this is not allowed
(as players can only spend two notes to destroy one note they own), it
is nevertheless accepted as performing the permitted action twice as
its intent is clear, unambiguous, and not excessively taxing on any
recordkeepors, etc. Following these guidelines, comex has followed a
similar path in making each of those proposals distributable as it is
clear which proposals e intends to make distributable and it is not
particularly hard on the Promotor or anyone else. Although e can not
technically do it, what e has done should be acceptable shorthand. I
therefore judge this case TRUE.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by Yally:

In response to the caller's arguments, all proposals in the
pool were made distributable at the time of allispaul's action.
Intents to perform actions can be announced early in this way, such
that I could announce my intent to make a non-existant proposal
distributable without objection, submit the proposal in the next four
days, and then make it distributable (provided there were no
objections). As such, "all proposals" in the sense that comex has used
it unambiguously refers to every proposal that could possibly be made
distributable, which includes those proposals submitted in the interim
of the intent and the action. There is therefore no ambiguity in the
statement.

========================================================================