I still don't understand this scam.
coppro argued that:
> it is IMPOSSIBLE to send a public message except where allowed
> by the rules.
because of the equivalence of "acting on behalf of oneself" and just
general "acting by sending a public message."
But R478 authorizes just that sort of action, thus allowing it by
the rules:
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
it.
so R478, if it authorizes acting by sending a public message, also
(by the very equivalence that coppro uses) authorizes acting on behalf
of oneself at the right level of Security. And an act by announcement
of "I do x" fits all the (a-c) of what needs to be specified to act-
on-behalf.
Now, either the authorization is either by R478, or by whatever rule
defines the act. In the case of CoEs, R2201 defines CoEs, and it
is power-3, so the ability is there.
(Note, in passing, that a CoE is not a tightly defined "document" that
is created, but just a result of noting an error, so also, as long as
R101 protects the act of sending a message, the fact that it
contains a claim of error is a fact of the message. "Claim" is given
the same general definition of "says" or "writes" so all I have to
do to have made a claim is to send the message - R101 protected.)
This just seems straightforward that R478 works, at least for actions
defined at power 3, if the equivalence is both ways. What am I
missing here? Something deep in the missing IRC logs?
-G.
