On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> ARGUMENTS
> 
> The intent to ratify the statement in question is enabled by
> R2202:
>       Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a public document,
>       specifying its scope.
> 
> At the time I attempted ratification, the notice of intent had a 
> single objection, and the time period had not yet passed.  So by 
> R1728, I was unable to accomplish the task.  Still, it was a clear
> attempt to do so.  Notice that R1728 (and R1729) do not use CAN 
> or CANNOT for regulating the action.
> 
> R2152 reads in part:
>       5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
> 
> I clearly attempted to ratify without objection.  Therefore,
> by R2152, the attempt was successful.

Called-for arguments: The phrase "without objection" obviously qualifies the 
word "CAN", thereby limiting it to cases where the action is attempted "without 
objection". (This is like how if a rule said "If a person possesses a hat, e 
MAY wear it", the MAY would only apply to persons who possess hats.) Since G.'s 
attempt was not "without objection", the word "CAN" does not apply, and so, 
although the attempt was attempted, the attempt was not successful.

A potentially more interesting question is that of whether Rule 2202 
"Ratification Without Objection" provides another mechanism (in addition to the 
Rule 1728 "Dependent Actions" mechanism) for ratifying a document. I don't know 
of any reason that the Rule 1728 meaning of "without objection" nullifies the 
ordinary-language meaning of Rule 2202. If this meaning is not nullified, then 
Rule 2202 seems to essentially say that "any attempt by a player (without 
objection) to ratify a public document (specifying its scope) is successful". 
This, in turn, seems to imply that any player can ratify any public document as 
long as the ratification has not *already* been objected to.

I hereby object to every attempt (past, present, or future) to perform an 
action.

Given the above objection, I think the ordinary-language meaning of "without 
objection" is no longer satisfied by any action. (Which was probably the case 
before anyway.)

—the Warrigal

Reply via email to