This provision is clearly intended to be a long-term protection against rule abuse. In such cases, it seems reasonable to interpret the meticulous wording as an added safety in case of new rule changes, without any implications following from whether or not the phrasing is redundant given the _current_ ruleset.


On Sun, 20 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I understand and agree with your logic (and, incidentally, would find it hilarious if this made me guilty of Masterminding Being a Bad Space Captain), but I have a brief question that occurred to me yesterday about Rule 2519, which says:

     A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
     as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action.

This seems to imply that it is possible for someone to act on behalf of someone else to "publicly state" something, and explicitly excludes that ability. This is almost the same as the language used in the Ribbons rule ("publicly acknowledged the fact [that it is Agora's Birthday]").

Does this mean that the "acting as emself" clause in R2519 is simply unnecessary? Or is "stating" something different from "sending a message that states" something?

Reply via email to