The issue really calls for interpretation. I would call the CFJ myself, but I'm far too intrested in judging it. :) I think I have some ideas for a ruling which would clarify the issue, set out some new interesting precedent, and generally not make anyone too grouchy. If anyone would care to use their free CFJ on an interesting case...
-Aris On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 6:04 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > I object to every one of the below intents. > > > > I'm wondering what is needed for you to be considered to have fulfilled > the > > monthly requirement and whether your objections violate it. > > > > In the first Eastman week of every month the Registrar SHALL > > attempt to deregister every player that has not sent a message to > > a public forum in the preceding month. > > I've long-wondered how requirements to do something match with methods that > require support/objections or "attempts" to do something. > > I've wondered for example what what happen if I just never followed through > on a posted intent for such a SHALL and let it time out, given that other > supporters could complete it I could argue "I attempted but no one carried > through." > > Or maybe, since the requirement is literally to "attempt" to do it, if I > purposefully misspecify a parameter so the intent turns out to be invalid, > I've still"attempted" it so satisfied the requirement. > > Or maybe, since a dependent action doesn't "happen" until the intent is > resolved, maybe "attempt" means that I'm required to say "I hereby do X > with > 3 Support" even if I DON'T have enough support, or never announced intent. > That's a literal "attempt to do X with 3 support" that then happens to > succeed or fail depending on whether intent was announced and got support. > > I don't know the answer to any of these. But I'm willing to bet that IF > I correctly announce intent, and IF I fully intend to carry out the intent > if it gets the right support (though this can't be proven), then a CFJ > would hold that I made "a good faith attempt" to do my official duty even > if I objected to it personally. Maybe the judge would even set a new > precedent distinguishing "clearly private actions" from official duties > in adjudicating how much I can impede a process and have it still count as > "an attempt". > > > >
