Thank you. This makes sense to me. Always appreciate the Agoran history lessons by the way—they’re fascinating.
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 1:31 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > >> 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. > >
