>This response makes me think you didn't read or comprehend my response.
This is a really intense claim, but I'll restate my response again, but breaking down your exact reply instead of making certain assumptions which I thought were obvious from dialogue. I believe this is the "practical" versus "platonic" approach again, or what "unwritten things" are "obvious"/"axiomatic" or not. (Axiomatic lightly in a lingo sense that it doesn't need to be explained, it's obvious or just "should be so, anything else would be ridiculous/bad/improper") "Why don't you have those axioms, you're crazy!" versus "How can those things be axioms, that's crazy!" The 'withdraw' extrapolation from ballots isn't obvious or "axiomatic" to me. I don't believe there is a good reason to assume it as such. There really isn't a solution to that, if that's the issue. I think you thought that I "didn't understand it" because I'm not assuming your axioms, but then again, I didn't state that I was continuing to argue from my point of view instead of explicitly going "ayo, this is an axiom problem" like I'm doing now. But yeah. Don't fucking toss me an ad hominem. I'll gladly re-process the ideas and re-present it again. Onto it: ---[YOU]--- Note the definition of regulated, from R2125: "An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor." ---[/YOU]--- There is no limitation, permission or enabling (unless 'unregulated' actions are allowed by the Rules, in which case, they're regulated, because they're allowed, and all actions in the universe are regulated as per my other proof, but I'm assuming that isn't true for the sake of argument) of withdrawing *objections*. It just explains that such a phenomenon, if it happens, has a certain effect. ---[YOU]--- The rules allow withdrawing ballots and proposals explicitly, and explicitly mention what happens, so under those conditions it's clearly regulated. ---[/YOU]--- Yes, and withdrawing ballots isn't the same thing as withdrawing proposals. And withdrawing *objections*, which was what my scam attempt was about, has no explicit conditions for success or failure. Ballots certainly do. Proposals certainly do. Objections, don't. ---[YOU]--- For this, there's no explicit definition. However, the rules still imply it's a thing players can do, and mention a situation where, if it was performed, it would have an effect. ---[/YOU]--- I think THIS is our CENTRAL disagreement and make it seem why each of us looks bonkers to the other. You believe that these unwritten implications exist, I don't believe they do. They're not obvious to me, nor do I see any reason for them to be obvious or "axiomatic". And you can disagree with that and we're back at the cards for cards, decentralized justice problem again but with a different flavor. We just disagree on these "axioms". >And your recent behavior makes me think you don't attempt to comprehend the >rules before acting. I do, but since I can't (and won't) be the final judge for my attempts, and I'm not psychic to know what the would-be judgement from others would be, so I just try stuff as an actual necessary part of reaching that comprehension. I have a good idea, sure, but I won't know for real until I actually try it. Nobody will get to fully understand the rules alone, and if that's what you're implying, I believe that's wrong, due to what I've said above. Or you mean that you'd prefer for it to be posted in Discussion rather than formal areas in which case, I can just shrug. It was free and non-spammy. I had nothing to lose, so I did it.
