On 2020-07-04 7:11 p.m., Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-business wrote:
I established in my previous judgment on this case that an intent to
engage in a forbidden action is an attempt to perform a forbidden
action; however, the case is under reconsideration because it is unclear
whether eir action was forbidden. Eir action was the following:
I thought of another thing to consider: R2221 says
Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or
more corrections to spelling, grammar, capitalization, formatting,
and/or dialect, or to whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in
place of a word or phrase, in the rule's text and/or title; the
rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person.
I don't think R. Lee specified any such corrections. Eir message was:
> I intend, without objection, to amed the rules in the following
> inconsequential way:
> Amend every word in the ruleset except the rules at power 4 to read
> "Meep"
If e had said "[Fix spelling somewhere] and then amend all the other
words to read 'Meep'" then e would have indeed specified a spelling
corrections, so maybe the whole change would have been applied ("the
rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person").
I don't think it changes the outcome of the case, since a buggy attempt
is still an attempt. But I wonder if my interpretation is correct.
--
Falsifian
