Actually, on reflection I think zombies are locked out of *all* dependent action steps (intent, support, or object). Even if my legal theory doesn't hold water, it's a good nerf in any case so I'd likely vote for that, most things that are really sensitive are locked behind dependent action (and that would also make the deregister w/3consent a genuine check on power, if the zombies became concentrated in too few hands).
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > > > I don't think there's anything preventing the Zombie from stating the > > > intent and the master supporting. Which e would have had to do anyway, > > > since you can only appoint _another_ player to Speaker by this mechanism. > > That depends. Intent is only defined after-the-fact (did someone announce > intent earlier?) which implies that it's simply a message. That matters > because of this (R2466): > > in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another > > person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that > > might be taken within a message. > > Is announcing intent a message, or an action taken within a message? > > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Okay, I've had enough of this. Zombies break too much of the ruleset. > > These issues with act-on-behalf are the only thing that make the whole > mess of useless contract-language currently in the rules have any > interest - I'd appreciate being able to see how these work (issues like > the above) using the zombie testbed. > > > They most definitely should not be appointing people Speaker. > > Being able to appoint a Speaker w/1 support is an awfully low bar - > maybe that's the real problem here. > > > > > >
