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

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/27/02 at 12:14 AM Rob Speer wrote:

>On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 10:25:43PM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> "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.
>
>Dear God, Glotmorf. I've never seen anyone try so desperately to break
>that rule.
>
>Your paraphrasing accomplishes nothing unless you can be much more
>specific. Which action are you referring to there? The rules did not
>mention *at all* how the action of creating points should be performed.
>--
>Rob Speer

The rules mention how points are to be awarded, and how points are to be transferred.  In the case of votes, absence of a rule regarding non-players voting was taken as an indication that non-players couldn't vote; in the case of points, absence of a rule regarding creation of points was taken as an indication that points could be created.

What rule do you think I'm trying to break?  I'm actually trying to establish a precedent here, by determining whether absence of a rule indicates permission or prohibition.  IMO, there are CFJ rulings that indicate both.  That fact doesn't help me plan for the future.

Is the problem in the structuring of my statement?  That I'm arguing against CFJ rulings?  I don't know how else to point out this inconsistency.  Either CFJ in and of itself might be reasonable, but the two of them together don't fit in the same nomiverse.  To me, it's as if one is saying the world is round and the other is saying the world is flat, and, excuse me, but I'd like to know which is official before I go sailing.

						Glotmorf