On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 13:59 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > For example, common sense committee procedure says "you can't both support > and object to something at the same time." But because someone a while > ago probably CFJed on that, and a judge said "well the Rules don't say > you can't, so you can", then we had to put a sentence that you couldn't > do both.
I used to do the combined support+object thing all the time; it doesn't really break anything. I think it's obvious that it works without a specific rule that it doesn't; supporting an action and objecting to it are both ISIDTID-based actions, meaning that they don't have any particular reason to match up with real-world intuitions, and the names are arbitrary. (Or to put it another way, notice of a dependent action, e.g. so that it can be objected to, works weirdly enough that it's unsurprising that objection and support also work weirdly.) I think it would be weirder if you couldn't, actually, given that the only common theme in the two actions (objecting and supporting) is that they both affect dependent actions in one way or another. The explicit prohibition on doing both seems more to me like an arbitrary restriction than anything that's necessarily implied by what the actions actually do. -- ais523
