> I also like this version.
>
> However, there's another problem: a dangling "it". (This is also in the
> present version of the rules, which I noticed during RTRW.) You should
> make it clear whether the objectors and supports are to the /intent/,
> or to the /action/. (Based on the way the other rules are worded, it
> should be the intent; you wouldn't want, e.g., objections to wins by
> apathy to be forever. I have some sympathy for allowing a blanket
> objection to all currently existing intents to perform a particular
> type of action, but we normally allow that as valid shorthand anyway.)
Right now, the rule says "A Supporter of a dependent action is...",
which seems to define what the supporter of an action is, not the
supporter of an intent, unless I'm misreading. Do you think we should
change that part too?
E.g.
First paragraph: A Supporter of an *intent to perform an action*
is.... An Objector to *an intent to perform an action* is...
Second paragraph: ...to support or object to *an intent to perform an
action*....
and then (incorporating D. Margaux's change in #3 as well)
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
unless at least one of the following is true:
1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, there are
at least N Objectors to that intent.
2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are fewer than
than N Supporters for of that intent.
3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and
the number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal
to N times the number of Objectors to the intent.
