On 7/7/22 01:03, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > That is, fulfilling these requirements in order to take the action by > announcement IS performing the action "with support", making it a tabled > action. The same applies to all tabled action methods. > So what's left to answer is if ais523 tabled an intent to perform a tabled > action. Can an action that is not defined by the rules as able to be taken > with a tabled action method still be a tabled action? > We come back to the question of what it means for an action to be "performed > by" a certain method. When is this evaluated? > Suppose we have an action, X, we CAN take by announcement or CAN take by > another method, let's call it "by floopment". > Is X performed by announcement? > The answer is, well, that the question is malformed. The action CAN certainly > be performed by announcement. But IS the action performed by announcement is > an entirely different question. The action could be performed by > announcement, or by floopment, or maybe not performed at all. Saying the > action IS performed by announcement would be a mistake when there is an > alternative, that it ISN'T performed by announcement, that it HAS NEVER been > performed that way but may be at a later date. > So when we are asked "is this action performed with support" the > interpretation should not be "CAN this action be performed with support" as > that is not what is being asked. What is more reasonable to ask "has this > action been performed through this method?" > "An action is a Tabled Action if it is performed with one of the > following methods:" > This is evaluated when the action is actually performed. Did the action occur > through the method of "with support", or another tabled action method? Or, > you could also ask, would it be? > It's a simple to realize that if you were to take an action by announcement, > that action would be performed by announcement. That is, hypothetical actions > taken by announcement can be said to be performed by announcement, when > taken. The same reasoning can be applied to tabled action methods, letting > hypothetical tabled actions be intended. > Suppose the opposite was true: hypothetical actions don't count, as they > haven't been performed yet by that method. That would still break tabled > actions and be harmful for the game, as no actions would be tabled actions > because no actions have been performed by tabled action methods before they > are performed. > So, hypothetical actions that would be performed by a tabled action method > are tabled actions, whether or not you can actually take them, thus you can > intend to take them even if you actually can't, and ais523's intent to take a > non-rules-defined tabled action succeeded because it would be performed by a > tabled action method is taken. I do not yet judge CFJ 3971 TRUE.
You summarily discard the option of reading the clause as considering rules-defined authorization to perform it by one of the tabled action methods without any argument against such a reading, which seems to be a reasonable reading to me. You merely assert that it's a different question, but when you argue that it's unclear what the text means, it's not at all clear to me that it's not even a possible reading. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
