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?