ais523 wrote: > Support is defined in much the same terms as intent by the rules; and it > at least is clearly an announcement, due to the MMI terms used to > describe it (a rule saying that something CANNOT be done under certain > circumstances implies that that thing is an action due to the > definitions in MMI). Other things to wonder about: if intent isn't an > action, then you can't perform it on behalf of someone except by quoting > an exact text of a message to send, and you can't deputise to do it > (although I doubt there are SHALL intends in the rules anyway). A whole > lot of weirdness happens if you start concluding actions to not be > actions, and I'm pretty sure that were it not for this scam, everyone > would immediately conclude that intent was an action. (An even more > surprising example: suppose we abolished the proposal system and instead > had a "change the rules via Agoran Consent" rule. Oops, rule 1698 stops > this; intent isn't an action, so there's no combination of /actions/ > that can change the rules...) Likewise, is creating a proposal an > action? The CAN create a proposal suggests it is (again, MMI > definitions, which people never seem to read nowadays); but if it > weren't, we'd be in serious rule 1698 trouble. The rules assume that > every sort of announcement that can have an effect on the game does so > by taking actions; a whole lot of things break if they don't.
Interesting. Do remember that "it would break the game" doesn't always imply "it's not true", unless of course it's sufficiently breaky to invoke R1698 (which anything seldom is). I vaguely remember a CFJ semi-recently about publishing NoVs, and whether someone was naturally capable of publishing an NoV since it was just a block of text and people can publish things, or if an otherwise unremarkable block of text was infused with the NoV-nature by the Rules under certain conditions. I don't remember how it turned out, but it may be relevant here.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
