On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > Because V.J. Rada did not pay 1011 shinies as a single action, eir purchase > > failed, and this CFJ is FALSE. E retains all of eir shinies, because they > > did > > not in the end accomplish their clearly stated goal. > > I intend, with two support, to file a motion to reconsider. > > I agree with the overarching logic of this decision, and expect that the > reconsidered > judgement on the statement in question should stand, but I’m concerned that > this may > set the precedent that an action intended to lead to a future consequence can > be un-done, > retroactively, if the consequence fails.
So if the Pend price is 2, and I try to spend 1 shiny in one message "for the purpose of pending the proposal" and then try to do the second one in a second message, you're suggesting that this counts as retroactive un-doing? It seems to me that, they way we've been playing, the first one just fails right away because it didn't do the intended thing.
