On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 23:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Yup. It only pauses it for 48 hours though, so in current context > useless unless I keep renewing it, and it's been around a while.
Is it even possible to object to the same intent twice? Rule 2124 used to use "objector" which is precisely defined, and still does in most cases. However, the new Speaker clause uses "objected" which isn't precisely defined, and the addition of a time limit makes it unclear exactly how it works. (Note that whatever objecting is, it definitely /isn't/ an action by announcement; it might or might not be related to posting an objection, which also isn't an action by announcement, but we normally treat an "I object" announcement as being an objection.) > But I've thought of about 3 ways to win using this, which I'll keep > to myself since you've proposed this already (and combo of assessor > and ability to speaker-delay others' notices means I have a pretty > big advantage trying it). This doesn't surprise me at all. As we learned from the whole Open It Up situation, when a scam's this obvious, it's typically the Assessor who ends up with it, and it would generally be better all round to just not pass the proposal in the first place. -- ais523
