On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg11471.html > "I award 8 points to Wooble and 12 points to ais523.", without > specifying the mechanism (obviously by announcement, that was an > announcement) or the source of the mechanism. I'm not entirely convinced > that that worked (although IIRC points are self-ratifying, so this > doesn't affect anything); certainly, only context made it obvious which > contest was granting the point-awardal power. In the case of Murphy's > recent attempt to effectively blank rule 2223, the mechanism (or its > source) does not make a ridiculous amount of difference, although it > does affect the result of the first of the CFJs I called.
Gratuitous argument: As in this specific instance, there may be many rules where two rules independently permit (through "CAN by announcement") the exact same action with the exact same consequences, and no difference in follow-on effects. In such instances, it is not for the good of the game (nor following custom) to add extra-legal requirements to the announcement of specifying which rule did the enabling, if "the rules" as a whole empower an action, it is the same action whether or not it is empowered twice. In a recent example, I announced by intent to deputize for an IADoP action. Then I became the IADoP. However, I could still (having announced my intent) "deputize" to perform the action (The deputization rule doesn't prevent me from deputizing for myself). Therefore two independent rules say that I CAN do the same thing by announcement. It is not for the good of the game to require me to specify which rule I use when I perform the action, as that would require us to constantly hunt for every possible permissions route every time. In the example ais523 gives for points, the difference matters for it depletes a reserve of points awardable for a particular contest. However, that means the consequences differ. In the current situation, the consequences do not. -goethe
