On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 11:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > > I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't > > looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method > > schemata, period, and if the method doesn't match, then R1728 doesn't > > apply to it. Since R1728 is the only rule that describes how to > > perform an action dependently, the action would probably be > > unperformable. > > Okay, let's take it from the point of view of one of these methods. > The Without Objection part of Without Objection AND with Support > would ask: > > 1. Is the initiator authorized to perform the action? > 2. Yes, but only with Support. > 3. Therefore if e has support, e satisfies (a) for determining > if e's authorized to do it without objection; > 4. Therefore e can do it (with support) without objection. > > And the nesting works the other way too, of course. > How would this affect time limits?
"Without 2 objections, with 2 support, I intend to beh" would mean that you would have to intend to (beh with 2 support) without 2 objections. After the objection time limit had expired, you could perform the action with 2 support, and the support could have been given earlier, if you'd given 2 separate intents. So that works as expected, but looks a little strange: "Without 2 objections, I intend to with 2 support beh" "With 2 support, I intend to beh" (objections/support happen here) "Without 2 objections, with 2 support, I beh" The other way round also works but has different intents. The double-intent required here also looks very strange. -- ais523
