Maybe a solution would be to require that it be clear that any action's performer is clear or else it does it does not occur, regardless of method.
On 06/14/2018 04:59 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > I've considered that, but it's also problematic. There are message > based actions which aren't taken by announcement. For instance, voting > isn't a by announcement action, and neither is a Notice of Honor. Like > the other provisions toward the end of the paragraph (timing and > ordering), it doesn't belong in the by announcement definition. Less > critically, adding it there would make the definition of by > announcement inelegant. > > -Aris > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> >> >> A way to stop the "overriding" may be to include "sender must be >> clear" in the *definition* of by announcement rather than as an additional >> property. It's awkward to say "you did that by announcement, but it failed >> for reason B" and better to be able to say "you didn't do it by announcement >> because the announcement was ambiguous" (the same way you would do if >> other parts of the announcement were unclear). (I think doing so would >> fix what you're seeing in R2141). >> >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 1:03 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: >>>>> Change the power of Rule 478, "Fora", to 3.1. >>>>> >>>>> [I'm astonished that no one has thought to do this before now, given >>>>> that this rule contains conditions for ALL actions taken by sending >>>>> messages >>>>> to work.] >>>> Unless there's a specific conflict, I don't see the need. And are you >>>> sure (i.e. done due diligence) that there's no "rules to the contrary >>>> notwithstanding" in a different power-3 rule that needs to overrule this >>>> rule in order to work? >>> I have now. There are none that shouldn't be overridden, and at least >>> one that should (Rule 2141). The point is that this is a very easy >>> restriction to override. Any power 3.0 "X CAN Y by announcement, rules >>> to the contrary notwithstanding" would bypass the restriction, despite >>> the fact that it clearly isn't trying to. I'm not sure that it's >>> absolutely critical that the power of the rule be increased, and I >>> know we're very reluctant to increase anything above 3.0. However, it >>> seems to me that R478 is exactly the kind of critical infrastructure >>> that shouldn't ever be overridden, it being one of our most basic and >>> most ancient rules. >>> >>> -Aris >>> >> -- ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
