On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> A) How did you even find that?
> B) I find that argument throughly unpersuasive and recant it. Considering
> the interest of the game is a last resort, and it is most assuredly not in
> the best interest of the game for the success of an action to be judged by
> its righteousness.
> C) I favor this case. I will withdraw my favor if anyone else is
> particularly interested in it.
I wouldn't judge based on "righteousness", but it's worth considering
"intent" (in the "last resort interest of the game" situation). To that
end, it's often fairly understood when someone is hiding/scamming around a
specific rule versus using it as generally expected/intended. It's been
found to be appropriate to judge scam/hidden moves on every technicality -
e.g. "if you're loopholing for this to work, I'll apply every technical test
and loophole and a single mess-up is fatal. However, if you're acting in
good faith the way a rule is intended, it's reasonable to be a bit more
flexible".
This line of precedent is most settled in the various "shorthand" precedents,
e.g. the precedent that "I do X 10 times" works if you're just doing it to
shorten a straightforward message, but doesn't work if such specifications
are too loopy (the only precedent I specifically remember for Dependent
Actions is CFJ 2316 that I mentioned earlier).
It's also worth pointing out that R1728 Intents are fairly strict as far as
specifications go, but R2124 support/objections are one of the least
strict - objections/support aren't "by announcement", it just says "if
someone has published support/objections they are a supporter/objector."
Note there's absolutely no standard of clarity in R2124 for this, not even
the standard of clarity required for "by announcement" actions! So a
direct rules-reading tells us that standards for support/objections are
easier to meet.
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 5:29 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, there is this reasoning by Aris from a prior email chain
> > that may be persuasive for why this kind of objection may be valid:
> >
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg29565.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 8:18 PM Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote:
> >
> > > CFJ, barring G.: "In the quoted message, G. objected to at least one
> > > intent to perform a dependent action."
> > >
> > > Caller's arguments: According to the judgement issued by Maud in CFJ
> > 1460,
> > > an action is only effective if "unreasonably excessive effort" is not
> > > required to determine what the action is. To determine exactly what
> > actions
> > > G. took here, one would need to carefully read each of the messages sent
> > to
> > > the public fora in the last 14 days, forming a list of the intents to
> > > perform dependent actions in those messages (including any and all
> > > inconspicuous or obfuscated such intents), and evaluate which of those
> > meet
> > > the criteria listed in G.'s message. I believe this is "unreasonably
> > > excessive".
> > >
> > > -twg
> > >
> > >
> > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> > > On Monday, October 15, 2018 11:43 PM, Kerim Aydin <
> > ke...@u.washington.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I vote AGAINST proposals 8105 and 8107.
> > > > > I vote FOR proposals 8106, 8108, 8109 and 8110.
> > > >
> > > > hmmm on 8107 vote there.
> > > >
> > > > I object to all intents to perform actions without N objections
> > > > (for all values of N) that have been announced by people other
> > > > than myself in the last 14 days.
> > > >
> > > > (I don't think this catches anything legit, but if so lmk and
> > > > I'll remove my objection).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
