On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > Gratuitous: The first method being limited to the announcer is an > inherent part of it, and similarly without-objection is an inherent > part of the second. Past exceptions to this common-sense approach > have depended on alternate constructions, e.g. "the Vizier can do > anything that an officer can do" allowing em to resign an office > held by someone else.
Gratuitous: It seems to me that "make ais523 inactive" is the action, ais523 is the actor, and "by announcement or without objection" is the method - if ais523 made emself inactive, and then someone used a dictatorship rule to make ais523 inactive, you would say they took the same action.* The rule refers to the possibility of the action, not the actor or method. * (a dictatorship rule rather than the existing without objection method because even though Dependent Actions simply allows you to perform the action by announcement once you have approval, "I do X" and "without objection I do X" are visually different and instinctively I would consider them separate actions; it probably doesn't matter)
