On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> Basically, the lack of the phrase “by announcement” removes a limitation
> on the method of achieving the action; it doesn’t prevent the action from
> being successful if attempted by announcement. I think.
This used to be true, and was found in court to be true. However, this
was then legislatively fixed by adding "methods explicitly specified"
to the following text in R2125 (Regulated Actions):
A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the
Rules,and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules
for performing the given action.
If there's no method "explicitly described in the rules" for the given
action (such as "by announcement" or something that explicitly leads
to "by announcement") there's no way to do it.
There's a few arguments you can use to make the case:
1. R2125 requires an explicit method, and beats out R2152 (Mother May
I) due to having same power and lower Rule ID.
2. It comes down to the interpretation of "attempt" in R2152. If I
said "hey, yesterday I attempted to destroy a coin by telling my friend
in person that I did it" then no one would find that an acceptable
attempt - attempt means invoking the explicitly-supplied method as
required in R2125.
3. (not preferred, but worth a note if 1 and 2 are not persuasive)
Since there was an explicit legislative solution made following a court
case on the matter, some deference should be given the legislative
solution if both interpretations are otherwise plausible.
