On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I intend, without objection from 2 members of Imperial and without
> > objection from 2 members of Team 4, to move Tiger to Team 4.
>
> For each team T, for each team U other than T, for each player P in T,
> I intend, without two objections from members of T and without two
> objections from members of U, to flip P's Allegiance from T to U.
I CFJ on the following, barring omd:
The message quoted in evidence is sufficiently unambiguous and
clear to qualify as an intent to perform at least one specific
dependent action.
Arguments:
This strains the bounds of unambiguity and clarity, given (a) the
combinatorial number of specified different actions which may be
beyond a reasonable effort to enumerate; and (b) interpretation for
a particular person who might object to being flipped in a particular
way under R1728/30(a). Does it break said bounds?
Evidence:
> For each team T, for each team U other than T, for each player P in T,
> I intend, without two objections from members of T and without two
> objections from members of U, to flip P's Allegiance from T to U.
Rule 1728/30 Dependent Actions [excerpt]
a) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
method(s) (including the value of N for each method), at most
fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on
objections or notice) at least four days earlier.
