On 2/2/21 10:18 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > The language is actually quite straightforward and in keeping with the > common definition of deadline. Rule 2614 says "any deadline" and provides > the example of "a deadline for an obligation to be met". While this is > just an example in the rule, that fact is that a player is obliged to > wait, as provided by R2595, 4 days between intent and successfully > performing objection-based dependent actions.
Don't we usually define "obligation" to be about LEGALITY not POSSIBILITY? R2614 says "deadline prior to which an action must be performed in order to be valid" separately from "deadline for an obligation to be met"; the former seems to be about LEGALITY and the latter about POSSIBILITY. Even if there is an "obligation" to be met before the intent resolution can happen, I don't think it makes sense to call it a deadline. If someone attempted to resolve an intent early, I think it would be really weird to say they "didn't meet the deadline". This is supported by R2614's later clarification which says "prior to which an action must be performed" - which way the CANNOT/CAN switches as time progresses matters. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
