For safety's sake maybe? (and lol I guess it's only 51 not 501). I called the CFJ mainly because Aris's favoring seemed to suggest e had something interesting to say on the subject other than "yep, still works" (and I wrote that long bit not so much for this situation, but because newer players tend to see things like this and say "cool, if that works, infinite loops would work too!")
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:10 AM Jason Cobb <[email protected]> wrote: > > If this is going to be a problem, I could just write a quick script to > write out all of the intents for me... > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/25/19 2:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Oh sure why not. > > > > I CFJ: Jason Cobb made an announcement of intent to banish the Ritual > > with 2.1 Agoran Consent that meets the clarity standards of R2595/0. > > > > (will slice and dice arguments/evidence from the below) > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:48 AM Aris Merchant > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>
