Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be legal?

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Jonathan David Amery,

>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>>> This is the same argument uin used with eir glasses of champagne.  My
>>> argument's the same.  Just because a particular action is legal, and that
>>> action requires the legality of another action, that doesn't mean the other
>>> action is legal.  The Charter you've described in your Charter Prop states
>>> the
>>> method by which people can be kicked out of your club; it doesn't say it's
>>> legal to actually perform that method.
>> 
>> It's not the same at all. The Champagne case deals with the legality of
>> performing actions on nonexistent objects. The LOOP, however, declares that
>> players may perform a certain action, and thus they may. The analogous
>> situation with Champagne would be if a player had a glass of Champagne and
>> tried to drink it, and you claimed that it was illegal because while the
>> Alcohol rule says that players may drink Champagne by posting a message to a
>> public forum, nowhere do the rules explicitly state that players may post
>> msgs to public forums.
>> 
> But the Charter of LOOP isn't part of the rules, so since the rules
> don't specify a way for LOOP or its players to take money from the
> Gremlin Fund they can't.
> 
> WC.

It's part of the rules for me. The rules say I must abide by my club's
charter.

-- 
Wonko