On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, comex wrote:
>> Points Party requires "4 days notice" for me to be able to amend it (not
>> With Notice, but rather the ordinary-language sense); I gave the notice,
>> and here's the amendment. As there have now been 4 days of notice (that
>> I intended to amend Points Party), I hereby amend Points Party to the
>> text shown within the {{{ }}} marks in the quote above.
>
> No you didn't, because (a) your "notice" clearly stated that you intended to
> amend without objections, and couldn't possibly have qualified as notice that
> you would do so via another mechanism (adding plain "I intend" to the list of
> intents would probably have avoided this), and (2) "with 4 days notice" is
> close enough that it almost certainly counts as With Notice now that such
> exists in the rules. (Compare how all contract-defined dependent actions were
> re-interpreted as real not pseudo-dependent actions when R1728 was amended to
> allow them.)
Two precedents of use: first, your recent precedent that I wasn't a player
implies strongly that using "intend w/o objection" is a specific R1728
type of notice and doesn't necessarily serve to establish informal, common
language consent, intent, or notice. This can be combined with previous
precedents (a few) that if there's two possible rules-actions that a single
announcement can fulfill, it doesn't fulfill both; if the difference is
substantial it must specify clearly which one it triggers or it's taken to
be wholly ineffective (perhaps the AGAINT precedent is the first example?)
And yes I meant to use the "G. is a player" precedent for this; a kibitzer
can still be an anti-scammer, c. :) :)
-G.
