I think my (misleading named) “too intense” scam from February of this year might be relevant.
The gist of that was that the rules at the time required that declarations of intent be conspicuous and, *independently*, that intents had to be announced four days before performing the action. Turns out, I could announce the intent inconspicuously, then, four days later, announce *the same intent* very conspicuously and perform the action in the same message. Relevant threads: Me pulling off and explaining the scam: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039934.html <https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039934.html> DIS thread: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-February/053227.html Aris’ judgements for CFJs 3709-10 (originally numbered 3705-6; link is to the original judgment, which was then discussed, reconsidered, and reversed in the same thread): https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039940.html <https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039940.html> DIS thread: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-February/053244.html The renumbering: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039998.html <https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039998.html> By the way, G: probably because of the renumbering, those CFJs are missing in your archive. Gaelan > On Jan 23, 2020, at 9:22 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 1/23/2020 8:28 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> More debatable whether: >> >> 1. intent >> 2. intent again >> 3. withdraw one intent but not the other >> >> works, but since it refers to "an announcement of intent", the intended >> interpretation is that it applies to the specific announcement, reinforced >> by the fact that the other clauses in the rule refer to the specific >> announcement in point 1; the announcements are clearly not fungible. > > Another thought experiment: > 1. intent > 2. intent again > 3. action that's very direct and explicit in citing intent #1 (e.g. "having > posted intent in the quoted message (#1), I do X.") > 4. It turns out something minor and technical was wrong with the first intent > that wasn't wrong with the second intent. > > Does it work? >
