If this goes to a CFJ, I favor that CFJ. -Aris
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:23 AM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 6/24/2019 11:17 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > This is probably the easiest way to do this: > > > > For each number X that is an integral multiple of 0.1 not less than 1.0 > and > > not exceeding 5.0, I do the following: > > { > > I declare intent, with X Agoran Consent, to banish The Ritual, pursuant > to > > Rule 2596 ("The Ritual"). > > > > I engage in DIABOLICAL LAUGHTER about the intent created in the previous > > sentence. > > } > > > > Is this legal? At least one of them will work at whatever time I end up > > doing it, right? > > tl;dr it probably works, but some recent rule changes *might* mean some > old precedents need to be revisited via CFJ. > > Longer answer: There's some deep precedents around this type of thing. > Strictly speaking you haven't declared intent at all these different > levels - you've just *said* you did. To actually do it, you have to > write all of those out (all 501 of them). However, it was long-ago > recognized that absolutely requiring 501 statements was a pain in the > butt for everyone and was actually *less* clear than a loop like you > did, because someone could hide something in a long list. So we (wholly > through precedent) found that "shorthand" works (e.g. a loop procedure) > - on the condition that it would be fairly trivial to write out the > whole thing anyway. > > The logic is as long as you're just saving us all a little time and the > looping is really clear, it's just a shorthand. But if you try to do > things that would be "hard to impossible" to write out in full, it fails > because you're saying you did something that you couldn't practically do. > > So, for example, you couldn't use an infinite loop to make an infinite > series of intents. You couldn't use a finite but "excessively large" > loop either - there's an email size limit on the archives (a bit bigger > than the FLR, idk exactly) so the idea is if it was really long, we'd > say "since a fully-written out email wouldn't be possible to send, a > loop of that size doesn't work either". > > In your case 501 single-line intents is pretty small, so no problem. > > HOWEVER. That's the general case for all actions. We recently changed > the langauge for intents in particular. We changed: > > 1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the > > action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and > > method(s) > to: > > 1. A person (the initiator) conspicuously and without obfuscation > > announced intent to perform the action, unambiguously and > > clearly specifying the action and method(s) > > The addition of "conspicuously and without obfuscation" was purposefully > added for the sole purpose of cracking down on attempts to hide intents, > including through algorithmic processes that are opaque. This is one of > the strictest communication standards in the rules, and we haven't put > too much case law into figuring out what it means. > > Does your loop meet these standards - it seems *reasonably* clear to me, > but in light of the new stringent standards I wouldn't be too horribly > surprised if a CFJ found the other way. > > > > > >
