On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 11:07 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 7/8/22 00:03, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 10:37 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> On 7/7/22 19:58, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> The fact that the usages of those methods must be rules-defined is > >> inherent in the fact that, in order for the rules to recognize the uses > >> of those methods, the actions must necessarily be regulated. It is > >> IMPOSSIBLE to take an action with N support if the rules do not permit > >> you to do so. You might have another method to do so if it's > >> unregulated, but that won't be "with N support". > >> > >> > > The action does not necessarily need to be POSSIBLE to be a tabled > action. > > It could be a tabled action that is currently impossible to take. That > > doesn't change that if it was performed "with support", it would be a > > tabled action, even if it currently IMPOSSIBLE to perform the action with > > support. These actions are regulated, yes, but impossible regulated > actions > > can still be tabled actions if they would be performed by a tabled action > > method. > > > > -- > > secretsnail > > > The action of "going shopping at the store" is not "performed by > dropping a penny on the floor", because there's no possible way that the > latter can result in the former. I think it's atextual to read this > clause to consider possible future hypotheticals. The rules must be > interpreted using their current text (or, for a CFJ, the text at the > time of calling), not possible future text. > If you were to go shopping at the store by dropping a penny on the floor, that would be performed by dropping a penny on the floor. It may be impossible currently, but Agora legal fiction can make it possible. The possibility does not determine if an action "is performed" a certain way. The judgement does not rely on future text, but on the current text allowing future actions, or rather, allowing intents for future actions, but not the actual actions to be performed. -- secretsnail
