> On Nov 17, 2017, at 6:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> Did we conclude that player B actually can complete player A’s intents like >> this, >> these days? > > Well it's right there in R1728: > 3. The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action > depends on support, the performer has supported the intent, and > the rule authorizing the performance does not explicitly > prohibit supporters from performing it. > > One question might be whether "depends on support" includes Consent > actions that depend *both* on support and objections, but I'd personally > allow it were I judging, since "depends on support and other things" still > depends on support. Is there some reason to think this clause is broken? > If so I missed that. >
Thanks. That clears it up enough for me to proceed. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
