On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 09:56 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I mean, if omd states "I hereby start the process of Review" > when the rules don't govern such a thing, isn't that just a > classic ISIDTID fallacy? I'd argue that ISIDTID isn't a fallacy in situations where your announcement can, in fact, accomplish things merely by being an announcement. Our "by announcement" definitions are one way to do this, but not the only way. Imagine if I published "I inform Agora's players that my name is Alex Smith.". This has no rules-defined effect; but it isn't the ISIDTID fallacy, because the mere fact that I've published the statement is in its own right sufficient to do the informing.
Likewise, telling Agoran players "here's something I plan to do, please review it" is sufficient to start a period in which Agoran players can review it, regardless of what the rules say; any circumstances in which something is available to be reviewed means that it can be reviewed. (A good way to think about it is this: posting the message to a-d instead would have been just as sufficient to allow a review to start, assuming that all active Agorans have an a-d subscription, which seems likely but not guaranteed.) One argument the other way that may be worth considering is that just because omd's message gave Agorans an opportunity to review the rules change, it didn't give any opportunity for that review to have any effect. Depending on your interpretation of the rules, this might or might not matter. Another argument is that just because Agorans /can/ review something, it doesn't mean they /will/. But if this is a problem, proposals don't work either (and presumably AIAN prevented the R101 breakup in the first place). -- ais523
