I think it's just long, long history combined with "it generally works, has
gone through a lot of CFJs, and messing with Objections is dangerous" so
no one's dared/bothered with a big refactor.
That's not bad or good, just no one has tackled it since - I just checked -
1999, when it first came to have this general procedure (it may have been
in keeping with rule style in 1999, I dunno).
If we dig into it there may be some good reasons to keep some of the things
"weird", but the whole structure isn't sacred or anything (I think!)
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Is there a reason the dependent action rules are so weird? Seems like they
> need a refactor to use more “normal” mechanisms.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > [The easy one first]
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> >> I CFJ barring twg: “If in the last 48 hours the Speaker has objected to
> >> any announced intents to Demand Resignation, then Agora is not
> >> satisfied with those intents and an attempt to Demand Resignation would
> >> be INEFFECTIVE.”
> >
> > CFJ 3679 Judgement
> >
> > The 'Demanding Resignation' procedure in R2472 is entirely by
> > announcement: a player can do it "by announcement" if e "announced
> > intent" in a specific time window. The only connection with R1728 or
> > R2124 is a procedural similarity, and the use of the term "intent" which
> > is used in the common-language sense ("intent" itself is not given an
> > explicit, reserved definition in the rules). As for the procedural
> > similarity, it is not exact: in particular, Agora does not need to be
> > "satisfied" with the intent for the action to be performed, so R2124
> > does not apply to this procedure. FALSE.
> >
> >
> >
> > [This second one was tough: I started out thinking the opposite to
> > this judgement then realized the implications of that. So this could
> > certainly use some review].
> >
> >> I CFJ barring twg: “A player CAN object more than once to a dependent
> >> action if e has not ever withdrawn an objection to that dependent
> >> action.”
> >
> > CFJ 3680 Judgement
> >
> > R2124 reads in part:
> >> An Objector to a
> >> dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
> >> (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to
> >> perform the action.
> >
> > This actually has two specific actions:
> > 1. publicly posting an objection;
> > 2. becoming an Objector to a dependent action.
> > and you do #2 by doing #1.
> >
> > Later in the Rule, there are consequences for whether or not the Speaker
> > has "objected to" something in the past 24 hours. But does "objecting
> > to" something equate to #1, "publicly posting an objection", that can be
> > done more than once, or does it equate to #2, "becoming an Objector?",
> > which can only be done once? (because after you've become an objector,
> > posting another objection doesn't change that status).
> >
> > At first glance it seems obvious that "objecting to" is equivalent to
> > "publicly posting an objection", just due to straightforward language
> > usage. However, in a parliamentary context, "objecting to" is a strict
> > procedural term that only counts if it changes the legal status (i.e. it
> > only counts if it makes you an Objector, otherwise you're just out of
> > order or repeating yourself or something). So in an outside-of-Agora
> > context, either interpretation is possible. While common-language
> > generally implies the first, and we are biased towards common-lanugage
> > interpretation in general, the context of the Rules in question - a
> > formal approval procedure - means the parliamentary context is also
> > plausible.
> >
> > What it comes down to, inside Agora, is Regulation.
> >
> > Quite simply, "publicly posting an objection" to something is wholly
> > Unregulated. It's a speech act, in the real world, if you say you've
> > objected to something, you've done it. Nothing in the rules limits or
> > constrains your ability to do it, you can do it for anything - you can
> > publicly post objections to proposals, rules, moves, anything you like.
> >
> > And it's VITALLY IMPORTANT that it be unregulated in the current system,
> > if Dependent Actions are to work. Because the rules nowhere explicitly
> > say "a player CAN publicly post an objection". So if "publicly posting
> > an objection" was taking to be regulated, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do
> > it because the rules don't say how you CAN do it (R2125).
> >
> > However, "becoming an Objector to a dependent action" *is* regulated,
> > because R2124 states how you do it (by publicly posting an objection).
> >
> > So what about "objecting to" something - regulated or unregulated?
> > Well, R2532 says you can't do it for Zombies, and R2124 says you can't
> > do it after you've withdrawn the same sort of response. So it is
> > Regulated.
> >
> > So if we equate "objecting to" with "publicly posting an objection", the
> > thing that needs to stay Unregulated to work, becomes Regulated. And
> > that means publicly posting an objection generally CANNOT be done,
> > because the rules don't supply a method for doing so. And the whole
> > basis of dependent actions breaks down - dangerously.
> >
> > Not a good idea.
> >
> > Equating "objecting to" to "becoming an Objector" doesn't have this
> > issue. They're both Regulated, and everything works fine.
> >
> > So since both readings of "objecting to" are plausible (one reading in
> > common language, one in parliamentary domains), and one reading causes
> > massive danger and breakage, we prefer the reading that doesn't. So
> > "objecting to" in R2124 means "becoming an Objector". Which, once
> > you've done it once, cannot be done a second time.
> >
> > So once a Speaker becomes an Objector, further public postings of eir
> > objections do not force a delay in the action, because e has *already*
> > objected to it (become an Objector) once.
> >
> > FALSE.
> >
> >
>
>
