ais523 wrote: > On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 15:05 +0000, Alex Smith wrote: >> Ah, good point. Probably the first intent will fail then, though. (It >> would definitely fail if someone forms a contract that defines "Medal" >> in the meantime.) The second intent should still succeed, though. > > Ah, I see what was going on. CFJ 2202 was based on a technicality in > Rule 1728/19. Nowadays, we have Rule 1728/23, which is non-trivially > different and no longer contains the same technicality, so it's probably > worthwhile re-calling the CFJs to see what happens with the current > ruleset.
*looks* That's interesting; in the performer = initiator case, 1728/19 required them to be authorized at initiation (but possibly not at performance), while 1728/23 requires them to be authorized at performance but not initiation. A new instance would presumably still fail if the intent referred to an undistributed proposal by number (due to ambiguity of which action is intended), but succeed if the reference was by other means.
