On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, comex wrote: > I disagree... if you require that an action be done four days earlier > than X, you are not requiring that it be done "prior to" X, but prior > to (four days before X). If I advise you, new to the Agoran ruleset, > that you have to resolve dependent actions earlier than the time you > perform them, and then you find out that you have to resolve them > _four days_ earlier, you would consider my advice incorrect, not > merely vague. "Four days earlier" is not a specific case of > "earlier".
First of all, let me say: I've read the two rules about 100 times before the scam, 100 times after, and I've constructed possibly passable arguments for: my interpretation, your interpretation, ehird's paradoxical interpretation, Murphy's "it doesn't work at all" interpretation, and wooble's "it works like normal" interpretation, and been somewhat persuaded by all of them at different times (the rules are internally self-contradictory). So I'm really hoping a "neutral" judge can come up with a convincing case one way or the other. That being said, between yours and mine: Mine is semantically and logically 100% accurate, in that the CFJ statement "a Notice of Intent is required to be posted before the time a matching w/o Objection action is performed" would be judged TRUE based on R1728. This matches the exact wording of the Holiday Rule "if A is required before given time B". The fact that the same statement would also be true for *any* given time B 0-4 days before the action doesn't alter/reduce its truth or the fact that it matches the holiday rule precisely. Yours described the overall practical effect: that there is a de-facto deadline 4 days prior. So the question is, is there only a single "most reasonable" given time that qualifies? If so, yours would be a strong(est) candidate, as it represents the practical effect. Or would any time 0-4 days prior qualify, since they would all qualify logically/semantically? Other questions are what happens to the "at most 14 days", and whether (since these are intents and action attempts and it's not against the rules not to do them) these are "required" at all, etc. This being Agora nomic, I'm not placing any bets on what a neutral judge would opine. Assuming e considers the range of arguments (and potentially ehird's, Murphy's, Wooble's, etc.) far be it from me to appeal either! -Goethe
