RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Proosal

["Gavin Doig" <gmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Rule 129 is irrelevant in this.
>
Oh? Let's see, shall we?

> Rule 18 states "Whatever is not
> prohibited or regulated by the Ruleset is permitted and unregulated,
> with the sole exception of Rule Changes, which are permitted only
> when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits them. A
> Rule Change consists of the creation (enactment), modification
> (amendment), or deletion (repeal) of a rule."
> 
It does.

> Repealing a rule is explictly a Rule Change and explicly does NOT
> fall under the "permitted and unregulated" clause. 
>
Well, no. That's not really relevant, though.

> Rule 129 just determines whether your action was "legal" -- it
> doesn't determine whether it was successful. Rule 129 makes no
> reference to the ability of legal actions to change the game state.
>
No, it doesn't. However, a swift glance at a dictionary reveals "In conformity with or permitted by law" as the most appropriate definition of "legal" for the way it's used in R129. Therefore, when rule 129 makes my action legal, it is permitting it. Thus, rule 18 allows me to change the rules, because I have been explicitly or implicitly permitted to do so by rule 129.

Granted, rule 129 is a rule, not a law, but given that it's *rule* 129 that's doing the legalising, that's an argument that's at best tenuous.

uin.
-- 

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a