On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:47 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Jonathan Rouillard > <jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com> wrote: >> AFFIRM without prejudice. > > No arguments from either of you?
It's true that it might seem like I simply judged without really looking into it... Here we go, late arguments: I agree that "A player can do [action] without objection" translates to "A golem can do [action] without objection", not simply "A golem can do [action]" without the objection part. I think it's reasonable to say that a Player announcing what eir Golem does can be considered the Mechanism by which the Golem announces it's actions, otherwise the Golem would be unable to do so which would mean they'd run afoul of R101, and "no interpretation of Agoran law [...] may substantially limit or remove a person's rights as defined by this Rule". ~ Roujo
