Login and get your AI feedback from Ludwig. Login and get your AI feedback from Ludwig.
Login and get your AI feedback from Ludwig.
(In particular, Wertheimer believes that this is frequently best understood as a question of whether the proposer proposes to violate the recipient's rights (Wertheimer 1987, 217).)[13] Yet the mere fact that something threatens one is not sufficient to ground a claim that it coerces anyone; the threat may be wrongful but also trivial.
The game is simple: one player, the "proposer", is given some money and proposes a way to split the pie with a second player, the "responder".
The proposal constitutes a threat if the proposer indicates that, if his demand is denied, he will make the recipient worse off than the recipient ought to be.
Both the proposer and the seconder of the motion have received threatening emails: the seconder has withdrawn his support and the proposer has requested that her name not be publicised.
None of these proposals for internal structure have been applied by other authors than the proposers.
This sort of ambiguity could be useful during the cold war, when Syria bought weapons from the Soviet Union while flirting with American peace proposers.
So, the proposers of a mining project might have to consider damage to the river and to downstream fisheries of any additional sediment the mine would produce.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.
Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com