==============================  CFJ 3221  ==============================

    I created more than one CFJ with the above text.

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

Caller:                                 FKA441344

Judge:                                  Machiavelli
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by FKA441344:                    28 May 2012 07:52:13 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli:                03 Jun 2012 17:48:58 GMT
Judged FALSE by Machiavelli:            04 Jun 2012 16:10:15 GMT

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

Caller's Evidence:

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM, FKA441344 <441344@gmail.com> wrote:
> I CFJ, linked(both inquiry):
>   *Rule 2350 contains the text
>    "which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool".

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

Judge Machiavelli's Arguments:

I believe there are two possibilities here. First, FKA simply sent two
messages, each having the same effect, and thus each calling a CFJ on
the same text, leading to a judgement of TRUE. Second, FKA sent a
single message twice, and this message only took effect the first time
it was received by most players, leading to a judgement of FALSE.

I believe FKA's intentions are relevant here. I think it is clear that
e did not intend to send two identical messages and have each take
effect, because there is no clear reason e would do so, and e
attempted to undo any duplication of effects. Since FKA intended eir
messages to take effect only once in total, we should hold that e sent
a single message twice, as long as this is a reasonable view of
reality.

Is it reasonable to believe that FKA sent a single message twice,
rather than two effectively identical messages? I think it is. CFJs
1451 and 1452 are relevant here, especially this paragraph from Judge
root's arguments:

> Perhaps we should go with the identity given in Hofstadter's _Godel,
> Escher, Bach_*, which defines a message as having 1) a frame message, a set
> of signals that indicate to the message receiver that there is a message to
> be interpreted; 2) an outer message, a set of signals that indicate how the
> message is to be interpreted; and 3) an inner message, the ideas that are
> intended to be communicated.
Judge root's precedent is that Agora is only concerned with the inner
message, as long as the outer message is sufficiently simple and clear
as to make it clear what the inner message is. FKA's outer message
("TTtaPF that's working, hopefully.") indicates reasonably clearly
that eir two emails are to be interpreted as containing a single
message, not two effectively identical messages. Therefore, there is
only one inner message; therefore, FKA called only one CFJ with the
given text; therefore, I judge FALSE.

In general, the acronym "TTttPF" and close variants of it should be
clear enough to indicate that the message quoted therein is a second
copy of a message previously sent, rather than a second, identical
message.

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

Judge Machiavelli's Evidence:

Sun, May 27, 2012 at 13:14 UTC, FKA sent a message to agora-business,
in which e called a CFJ on the statement {Rule 2350 contains the text
"which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool"}. However,
agora-business did not distribute this message until about 20:26 UTC.
At 13:29 UTC, FKA sent a second message to the Yoyo backup list, in
which e quoted the first message along with the text "TTtaPF that's
working, hopefully." This second message was distributed within
minutes.

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