On 6/13/20 7:27 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/13/20 8:16 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: >>> No, that's not right. It is calculated from the time of the resolution of >> the intent, not the intent itself. >> >> I do intend to transfer a victory card and also intend to transfer a >> legislative card from the Lost and Found Department to myself, both without >> objection. > > I know that coins are fungible, but let's consider if they weren't for a > second. > > Assume L&FD had 3 coins: Coin A, Coin B, and Coin C, and I said "I > intend, without objection, to transfer each coin owned by the L&FD to > myself". I think that I would clearly have only given intents for Coins > A, B, and C, even if Coin D was later transferred to L&FD, because Coin > D wasn't a "coin owned by the L&FD" at the time of the intent. > > You're suggesting that the parameters to the actions are evaluated at > the time the intent is resolved. Consider if the Registrar said "I > intend, with notice, to deregister the person I have most recently > designated as 'The One To Be Deregistered'." I think everyone would have > a problem with that - the parameters to the action are arguably part of > specifying the action itself. > > Rule 2595 requires that "[the initiator] published an announcement of > intent that unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without > obfuscation specified the action to be taken and the method(s) to be > used". If the parameters can only be evaluated at the time of resolution > and not at the time of initiation, the specification arguably does not > meet that standard. > > -- > Jason Cobb > Which part of those standards do you feel it doesn't meet?
-- nch Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate
