On Thu, 2022-03-17 at 23:41 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > I table each of the above intents again. [snip] > This may work because each intent is ripe (tabled within the past 14 > days) and mature (tabled at least 4 days ago). [snip] > Precedent on this? This seems way too broken to work, and like I'm > probably missing something.
The rule in question changed recently to use different wording from the wording it used to use for years, so it's possible that something broke in the change (and there's no direct precedent as a consequence. However, at least under the old version of the rule, it was pretty clear that (the equivalent of) tabling an intent was a method of creating the intent, so attempting to "re-table" an intent doesn't work – you're just creating a second intent (which therefore isn't mature). If you read the tabling action as allowing persons to table intents that already exist, then tabling doesn't work at all, because there'd then be no way to create the intent in the first place. So the scam only works if you consider rule 1728 to be capable of either creating a new intent, or re-tabling an existing one, which seems like too much of a stretch in the wording as it doesn't give any indication that it makes two different actions possible. Alternatively, I can see a plausible argument that intents are not created by the rules, but rather as part of a person's mental state, and tabling them is the action that causes Agora to take recognition of them. This is broken in a different interesting way (you have to actually mentally intend to take an action before you can table that intent, otherwise no intent exists to be tabled – and if the person who had the intent no longer intends to perform the action, the intent itself no longer exists, so there's nothing to be tabled any more). In any case, this "intents are a natural construct, not an Agoran-legal construct" reading probably prevents this version of the scam working because nix didn't intend for secretsnail to perform the action or for it to be performed a second time, and thus the intent in question doesn't exist to be re-tabled. This is definitely worth a CFJ, at least! This hasn't been litigated since the new version of the rule was written, and there are multiple plausible readings of it, which lead to different results, and potentially to some interesting breakage. It might be hard to word the CFJ statement to distinguish between the various possibilities, though. -- ais523
