Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2024-04-23 00:59]: > On 4/23/24 00:55, mqyhlkahu via agora-discussion wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Janet (randomnetcat) responded to our Declaration of Intent to Push the > > Boulder[1] with the following[2]: > > > >> this is *very* close to accidentally being a tabled intent under R1728 > >> rather > >> than actually pushing the bolder. > > To our understanding, our action is not a Tabled Action[3] because the > > Rules do > > not "purport to authorise its performance"[4] by one of [5]. Is our > > understanding correct? > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > [1] > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2024-April/052927.html > > > > [2] > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-April/064058.html > > > > [3] Rule 1728/46 (Power=3) > > > > [4] {{{ > > > An action is a Tabled Action if the Rules purport to > > authorize its > > > performance via one of the following methods: > > > [- snip [5] -] > > > [- snip -] > > > A person, acting as emself, CAN by announcement table an > > intent > > > (syn. "intend") to perform a tabled action, clearly, > > > conspicuously, explicitly, and without obfuscation specifying > > the > > > action, the method (including non-default parameter values), > > and, > > > optionally, conditions. > > }}} [3] > > > > [5] {{{ > > > * With N Support, where N is a positive integer. > > > * Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer. > > > * With N Agoran Consent, where N is a positive integer > > multiple of > > > 0.1. > > > * With T notice, where T is a time period. > > }}} [3] > > > > Ah, yes, good point. I did forget that requirement. So it wouldn't be a > successful tabled intent. However, to my mind, "We intend to push the > boulder." would likely be held as failing to push the boulder, as the > intent to do so "by sending the message" isn't clear and unambiguous > (R478), since that's the normal form for setting up a tabled intent for > later, even if that isn't actually possible. > > (As usual, I'm merely guessing how a judge would rule, but that's > certainly how I would rule.) > > I still think your original message isn't quite that, but it's close.
I honestly don't consider the original message as a boulder push (and do realize that I'm considerably leniant on that front). I won't record it. On the plus side, it's a great chance for mqyhlkahu to interact with the CFJ system. -- juan Absurdor
