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
