No, never mind, I don't think it does. I can make it work.
-Aris On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > If no one objects, I'm going to make it support, object, or resolve, > on the basis that it's a bit easier to write and has a similar effect. > > > -Aris > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> >> >> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
