Re: spoon-discuss: Re: Proosal

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Gavin Doig,

>> 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.

If 128 says it's legal, and 18 says it's not, then it's not, under the
precedence laws of rule 33.




-- 
Wonko
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit.