On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 5:56 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
I'm assuming by "the clause" you mean "An action is a Tabled Action if it
is performed with one of the following methods:"
As it has no mentions of the rules, I didn't think it was necessary to
include an interpretation where a tabled action must be rules-defined as an
action able to be performed with one of those methods. But looking at Rule
2125 (Regulated Actions), I do see the relevance.
A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the
Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the
Rules for performing the given action.
You can make the connection that an action "is performed with a method"
means that action "CAN be performed by that method as described by the
rules", but that seems like a bit of a jump given the wording is
significantly different as I argued, "is performed" vs "CAN be performed".
As the rules don't explicitly say that tabled actions have to be
rules-defined to be intended, we shouldn't just assume that's what the
rules mean. We should consider it, but there's no evidence that suggests it
to be true. The lack of an explicit requirement to be rules-defined more
implies that there is no requirement to be rules-defined than there being
one.
But considering it as an equally valid reading, we should look at the 4
factors from Rule 217. Game custom and previous judgements don't seem too
helpful in the current situation as I can't find any good examples for
custom and previous judgements would also be out of date with the rule
change, though if they did hold that intents to perform impossible actions
could be made in the previous rules, that might favor the "is performed" is
not "CAN be performed" interpretation. For common sense, as ais523 pointed
out, it makes sense to be able to intend to do an action even if you can't
actually do it. Best interest of the game? The "is performed" is not "CAN
be performed" interpretation is more flexible, letting players intend to do
an action that will be available in the future, even if they can't take it
now, which seems good and interesting for the game. So it seems like it
leans to the non-rules-defined tabled action interpretation, and given
there's no outweighing reason to pick the "must be rules-defined"
interpretation, a hypothetical tabled actions allowance is the better way
to judge.
--
secretsnail
