On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 21:22 +0100, ais523 wrote: > Rule 1728 does not define With Notice at all; instead, it treats the > words as a trigger that allow an action to be done in a dependent > manner. In fact, I can't see any rules or contracts that purport to > allow a person to perform an action /dependently/; they say "with > support", or "without 3 objections", or "With Notice", but those > words /do not/ indicate a dependent action. The introduction to rule > 1728 requires, as one of the conditions, that the rule purports to allow > a person to perform an action dependently; as far as I can tell, no rule > or contract purports such a thing. (Rule 1728 does not define "With > Notice", or "with support", or whatever; it merely triggers on the words > in question, adding a dependent-action mechanism when the words are used > and the rule already claims that a dependent action exists.) > > This is rather bad; I suspect it means that there are no dependent > actions anywhere in the rules. I missed this point when originally > constructing the scam, but it's likely broken dependent actions for > quite a while. Yay for self-ratification!
Looking back at the rule history, this appears to have been broken by rule 1728/18 back in February 2008. Pretty much the only possible argument I can see here that dependent actions work is that game custom (or continuity of words in existing rules) is that actions using the phrases in question are dependent actions despite nothing indicating that they are, and that this somehow overrides the rules. This would not affect any contract or rule newer than February 2008 that didn't use language that was generally taken to indicate a dependent action at the time, though; including the "with notice" in my contract. -- ais523
