On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 11:20, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 1/23/2020 7:49 AM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote:
> > Proposal: A Degree of Inefficiency (AI=3)
> > {{{
> > Amend Rule 2595 (Performing a Dependent Action) by inserting ", and did
> not
> > subsequently withdraw, " immediately after "published" in the first
> > paragraph.
> > }}}
> >
> > -Alexis
> >
>
> Consider:
>
> 1. Announcement of intent 1.
> 2. Withdrawn.
> 3. Second Announcement for the same thing.
>
> Now, since I have "previously withdrawn" such an announcement, the blocking
> condition will still be true, I can't do it.
>
It's a good thing I wrote "subsequently withdraw" not "previously
withdrawn", then.
More debatable whether:
1. intent
2. intent again
3. withdraw one intent but not the other
works, but since it refers to "an announcement of intent", the intended
interpretation is that it applies to the specific announcement, reinforced
by the fact that the other clauses in the rule refer to the specific
announcement in point 1; the announcements are clearly not fungible.
