|Jonathan Van Matre on 31 Jan 2002 19:20:01 -0000|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Game Action|
> What a fantastic use of false dichotomy. The issue isn't > between fair play and the (sensible) more restrictive > interpretation of rule 18, it's simply between the 2 > interpretations of rule 18. Using the first definition isn't > unfair simply because it would cause your scam not to work. You misunderstand me. I'm not saying one interpretation of Rule 18 is fair and the other unfair. I'm saying inconsistently applying both of them as it suits our wish for certain things to occur in the game is unfair. I agree 100% with your last sentence. But use of definition 1 to quash my scam within mere ndays of using definition 2 to let a Gremlin be thrown on the Grid *is*, in my opinion, unfair. > > Either > > > > 1) Any rule specifying any way in which something > > *can* be done automatically prohibits it from being > > done any other way. > > > > or > > > > 2) Everything is permitted unless expressly prohibited, > > with the exception of rule changes. > > > Which is *not* what rule 18 says. It says "prohibited *or* > *regulated*". OK, let's define regulated. Is any passing reference to something in the rules sufficient to qualify as regulating? If not, what criteria must be satisfied? --Scoff!