What if we approach this from the other direction—i.e., what kind of a thing could this “Protocol” action possibly be?
If this Protocol action isn’t somehow authorized (directly or indirectly) by the Rules, then it cannot be used to perform regulated actions and so there’s no reason for us to care. No Rule creates a Protocol action that can be invoked in this way. A proposal cannot continue to have effect after it is adopted, so a proposal can’t have created this Protocol action. Maybe this Protocol is defined in a contract, but it’s not clear why anyone who isn’t a party to that contract should care. As per a recent judgement, contracts can’t bind non-parties. Where does that leave us? What kind of a thing could this Protocol even be? > On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:18 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote: > > The closest thing I could find is this: > > <https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg23518.html> > > which relates to UNDEAD, but to the best of my knowledge Aris registered well > after UNDEAD was a major thing. > > My default assumption whenever something like this happens is that whoever's > responsible is just trolling, although I concede that isn't very > characteristic for Aris. > > ais523 mentioned something about the original definition being NttPF - we've > already checked the a-d archives, but maybe there was once something in the > IRC channel? Or does anyone know of any other discussion forums that have > been active since Aris registered? (Don't have time to look back through old > Registrar reports right now.) > > If Aris remembers it but Gaelan doesn't, then the thing that needs > remembering must presumably have happened in late 2016 or early 2017, > assuming neither of them is being misleading. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:41 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> The Protocol seems like something that could be interacted with but it’s >> too obscure for uninformed people to properly react to (“if you remember” >> and whatnot, implying it requires some kind of past knowledge, and there’s >> nothing on the archives so I have no idea), I did the same lol. >> >>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 09:32, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote: >>> >>> This is incredibly frustrating. That being said: >>> I object to any intents announced in the quoted message. >>> If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I vote for the first >>> of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option. >>> If the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection an >>> incorrect document, I point my finger at Aris for the class-8 crime of >>> Endorsing Forgery. >>> (Honestly, I doubt that any of that did anything. But it was fun to think >>> through) >>> Notice of honor: >>> An extremely begrudging +1 to Aris for this frustrating puzzle >>> -1 to CuddleBeam for taking the “slang” thing way past when it was funny >>> Gaelan >>> >>>> On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant < >>>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the >>>> timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what >>>> this >>>> means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able >>>> to >>>> work something out.) >>>> -Aris > >
