On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:10 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that
> > case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes
> > "requires", as does the third paragraph; however, our scam was based on
> > the paragraph and subsections between those, which don't include any
> > language about requirement. We aren't delaying a requirement time;
> > instead, we're delaying "the time limit to perform an action", which is
> > much more CAN-friendly action.
>
> Except that "between those" text is only functional for when the rules
> set a time limit for a FUTURE event. The rules set the time limit for
> dependent intent is a time limit for a PAST event, so that's covered at
> all there.
>
It also explicitly allows "the time limit to perform an action". I admit
that that's the most tenuous part of the whole scam, though; arguably,
the rule contradicts itself there, and the interpretation in which the
scam doesn't work is the more plausible one.
--
ais523
