On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
That's not the way I was interpreting it. If you mean it to be nested like that, you should make the nesting explicit, especially since you're using R1728 in a way it wasn't meant to be used. Also, I'm not convinced that R1728 doesn't simply allow the inner layer to be bypassed. For example, if the nesting were "CAN (ratify ... without objection) with support", I could envision the following interpretation: I publish official report X, which if ratified would make me dictator. I intend to (ratify X without objection), with support. I cause Player B, on whose behalf I can act, to support this. Having obtained the necessary support, I hereby perform the action "ratify X without objection" as permitted by R1728. -root
