spoon-business: CFJ -- Okay, but...

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

CFJ 251, that non-player entities' votes should count since they are not regulated as players, was judged false; the analysis included the following:

"Rule 30, which reads "Each Player may cast exactly one vote on each proposal on any given Ballot.", serves to regulate the action of voting.  Since voting is thus regulated by the rules, non-player entities may only vote as specified by the rules. **No rule specifies how a non-player entity should vote.**" [[Emphasis added.]]

In other words, if there is a rule that mentions how a given action is performed under certain circumstances, said action cannot be performed under any other circumstances, because of the absence of a rule that controls those other circumstances.

Yet CFJ 133, which stated that a player had been successful in setting eir score to a certain amount, was judged true; the analysis included the following:

"If uin had only 'set his score' (as I did) the score would be overridden as soon as score was defined to be the number of points. If he had 'transferred points' it would be regulated by the rules and thus illegal.

"But he did neither. He simply _created_ the points, **which was not regulated by the rules at all.**" [[Emphasis added.]]

In other words, just because there is a rule that mentions how a given action is performed under certain circumstances, said action is not prevented from being performed under any other circumstances, because of the absence of a rule that controls those other circumstances.

These two judgments are contradictory; therefore one of them must be
invalid.


[[ I am still trying to determine the de facto policy for the game.  People talk about things that are legal because the rules don't forbid them, yet so many CFJs restrict action because there are rules that talk about things done in a particular way.]]

						Glotmorf