On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 10:40 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Um. New guy here. Sorry, but I'm a bit confused. If I'm getting this right
> > you're objecting...
> > To something you proposed? That doesn't sound right. I think I'm getting
> > confused?
> > Or what are you doing? And what doses the "do so mean"? I'm sorry, I'm
> > probably making
> > some error here.
> > -Aris
> Saying "I do so" when quoting a previous intent generally means "now that the
> period has passed, I do what I wrote above".
> But I *think* ais523 is just being silly. I pointed out earlier that I had
> in fact
> ratified the report so e didn't need to, so ais523 objects to eir own intent
> (so it will fail) and then claims to do it - which does nothing since there is
> an objection. If I'm wrong, maybe ais523 will enlighten us...
Right, I suspect that it fails. "I support and do so" used to be pretty
common and was widely treated as working, even if the support earlier
in the sentence was required for the dependent action later in the
sentence to work correctly. Therefore, by analogy, we should expect "I
oppose and do so" to fail even though the action was possible at the
start of the sentence.
However, the situation here is a bit more complex. In the case of "I
support and do so" both actions are possible, so it doesn't matter
whether this is one combined action, or whether they're two separate
actions with neither conditional or the other. With "I oppose and do
so", I can see a reasonable argument that the entire sentence fails to
accomplish anything because there's no way to both oppose /and/ perform
the ratification. Alternatively, you can argue that the ratification
succeeded, on the basis that you can successfully both oppose the
action and perform the action if the performance of the action comes
first! This requires "I X and Y" to not be equivalent to "I X, then Y",
but the two have a different meaning in logic, and possibly a different
meaning in standard English. (Note that in "I support and do so", the
support definitely has to come first, so the problem doesn't arise.)
Mostly, though, this is a case where the ratification doesn't actually
do anything useful even if it succeeds, but nobody had objected to it,
so I got to try out a little logical snarl-up just for fun. I'm not
entirely sure it merits a CFJ, especially as it seems to have no
gameplay effect (there's no longer a requirement for offices to report
on when their reports were last ratified; maybe we should add it back,
because it was useful).