On Sun, Nov 17, 2024, at 10:43 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 8:31 PM RadicalRose via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > In the Discord snail argues the following (presumably against): > > >"ineffective" is just shorthand for what [R2659] already says i think, > > doesn't look like this worked. Also Mother May I is just a list of > > definitions and isn't really involved in precedence calculations because of > > that. The "CAN" in the stamps rule is only power 1 compared to the power 3 > > INEFFECTIVE in the fee-based actions rule > > > > To this I respond by saying the third bullet point in [2] is opposing not > > the power 1 "CAN" in R2659 (Stamps) but instead the power 3 "CAN" in R2125 > > (Regulated Actions) which again takes precedence over the higher id R2579 > > (Fee-based Actions). > > > > -- > > RadicalRose > > Hat: knitted cap > > > I don't think i was very clear here so i'll elaborate: > > The "CAN" in R2125 (Regulated Actions) *can't* be opposed, because it's a > definition. The only thing that could oppose a definition is another > definition. The bullet point has to be opposing whatever Rule says the > action "CAN" take place, not the definition of CAN. If this scam does > theoretically work otherwise, it's at least limited to rules that > out-precedence the fee-based actions rule. (Invoking a definition provided > in a Power 3 rule does not make the statement it's used in Power 3.) > > -- > snail >
Thank you for the clarification, I would still argue that since it is that definition that creates the idea of actions succeeding or failing it should have some merit and even if it does not the two rules at opposition are "R2125 (power 3) vs R2579 (power 3)" not "R2659 (power 1) vs R2579 (power 3)". R2125 lays out how a regulated action succeeds, while the last part of R2579 may (this is also up for debate) lay out when said action fails and therefore it is these two rules that are at odds. For the sake of argument R2125 may instead be read as by replacing CAN with its definition: A attempted Regulated Action succeeds if and only if it is performed as described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action. The Rules are not to be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions. So by performing the action as described by the rules and by using the method explicitly specified. The action by default, succeeds, and is then opposed by the "Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the action is not performed." in R2579, which is then resolved by order of precedence. -- RadicalRose Hat: knitted cap
