I think we allow people to make multiple actions in one message because it's often a useful and necessary shortcut. I think it's possible to make two simultaneous actions by sending 2 emails with the same timestamp, to the second. So there isn't a good reason not to allow simultaneous actions in one message.
This wouldn't mean G has two ministry foci of course, because that rule uses the singular 'the', meaning that if there is no most recently specified focus, it is not flipped. Actually because the two possible options are either that he took sequential actions (flipping to participation) or simultaneous actions (no flip) there is no circumstance this CFJ is anything but FALSE. So the judge doesn't have to resolve the underlying issue. On Sat, Aug 7, 2021, 11:06 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > [lol sigh. one more err want to get this exact.] > > I withdraw the most recent CFJ I called. > > > I simultaneously plan to flip my focus to Legacy and plan to flip my focus > to Compliance. > > > I CFJ: Assuming G. announces no further focus plans, eir focus will flip > to Legacy at the beginning of the next month. > > > Evidence: > > Rule 2638/0[extract] > An active player CAN Plan to Flip eir own Ministry Focus, > specifying any valid value for eir Ministry Focus, by > announcement. At the beginning of a month, every active player's > Ministry Focus is set to the value e mostly recently specified by > Planning to Flip. If a player did not Plan to Flip eir Ministry > Focus switch in the last month, it is not flipped. > > Arguments: > > Rule 478/39 reads in part: > Any action performed by sending a message is > performed at the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in > messages (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they > appear in the message, unless otherwise specified. > > The "unless otherwise specified" seems like a bit of a security hole, > given that several mechanisms in the rules would break if people could > perform multiple actions simultaneously. But I can't find a prohibition > against that - the "in the order they appear" is written not as a limit, > but as a default that can be overridden - can it go so far to specify "at > exactly the same moment (simultaneous)"? > >
