On 5/26/23 14:14, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:01 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>> Now, it is sufficient to determine whether "that Rice Plan having that
>>> player's Signature" is an action or not. I'd say that it is a regulated
>>> action, fitting all three criteria for regulated actions: the rules have
>>> said how it occurs, whether it succeeds, and it affects gamestate the
>>> Ricemastor must track.
>>
>> Again, it's not an action, it's a property or a state of affairs.
> I disagree here. The judgement could wordsmith this critical point a
> bit better, but it's perfectly reasonable within the bounds of the
> rule text and common sense to say that going from "not having a
> signature" to "having a signature" is a change (an action) that
> happens with consent.
>
> -G.
I agree that a change from not signing to signing is an action.
I disagree that the text can be construed to evaluate "consent" with
respect to that. The text doesn't suggest that to me at all, and it
would be continuously evaluating "consent" ("as long as e is
consenting") for an instantaneous change.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
