On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> 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.
Yes, the issue is that the phrase ("including the time limit to perform
an action") is a parenthetical on "future event". Two reasonably
consistent ways to read this:
1. In the Rules (other than the holiday rule itself), a dependent
action is (is practice) in the future of the Intent. Therefore, even
though the Dependent Actions rules refer to the time limit of a past
event, the de-facto future action is the action itself, not the intent,
and something with a time limit 4-14 days *after* (in the future of) the
intent posting. The intent posting timing is not affected, but the
deadline for action performance is (Murphy's argument).
2. Since these clauses are only triggered when the rules make a
future event (including a time limit) contingent on a past event, and
the dependent action rule makes a past event contingent on a future
event, dependent actions are not not affected at all by these clauses.
2a. (corollary). My previous arguments show that the "required" clauses
of the holiday rule also don't apply to dependent actions. So between
2 and 2a, dependent action timing is utterly unaffected by the holiday
rule (this nets to Wooble's original result).
-Goethe
