On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 00:18 +0000, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > CFJ, barring G.: "In the quoted message, G. objected to at least one > intent to perform a dependent action." > > Caller's arguments: According to the judgement issued by Maud in CFJ > 1460, an action is only effective if "unreasonably excessive effort" > is not required to determine what the action is. To determine exactly > what actions G. took here, one would need to carefully read each of > the messages sent to the public fora in the last 14 days, forming a > list of the intents to perform dependent actions in those messages > (including any and all inconspicuous or obfuscated such intents), and > evaluate which of those meet the criteria listed in G.'s message. I > believe this is "unreasonably excessive".
Arguments: Intents aren't really actions, based on the "backwards way" we look at them. It may well be that objections aren't actions, either. Even if they are, it's up to the resolver to find objections, not the objector to find the intent; this objection is one that resolvers should have no real problem finding. -- ais523
