RE: spoon-business: RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Game Action

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There's the good ol' "regulated" argument.  Being too lazy to get up and look at a dictionary, I'm gonna guess that "regulate" has its roots in "regular", which among other things means patterned -- regular meals, regular bowel movements, etc.  It can be argued that Rule 14, in stating that forfeitures can be done in a particular way, is regulating forfeiture, in that it's establishing the pattern by which forfeiture can be done.  It's not prohibiting forfeitures from being done some other way; it's regulating how they're done.  Which means Rule 18 is actually doing the prohibiting rather than the permitting, by failing to say that it is permitted and unregulated to do forfeiture in a way other than how Rule 14 patterns it to be done.  And since forfeiting in some way other than how Rule 14 isn't permitted or unregulated, it actually falls under (God help us) Rule 10, which says we have to follow the rules in effect.  Which don't include an explicit means to forfeit other than by Rule 14.

I think this one is fairly straightforward.  Less straightforward would be:

-	asking all the players to forfeit
-	demanding all other players to forfeit
-	forging the names of all other players on a letter that says they forfeit (note that this would have to be an explicit action on the public forum, i.e. "I forge Fred's name on a letter that says e forfeits, and make it real convincing-looking")

A stronger example of an unregulated action would be if I were to paint you blue.  There's all sorts of rules that talk about your existence, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can't alter your existence slightly by painting you blue.  I think.

						Glotmorf

On 1/31/02 at 4:11 PM Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

>It's not at all clear, especially considering game precedent, whether the
>forfeiture action was legal or illegal.  Again, Rule 14 specifies how a
>player *may* forfeit.  It doesn't limit forfeiture to that method, except
>if one interprets rule 18 in a manner that qualifies what rule 14 does as
>prohibition of any other method of forfeiture.  That was the point *I* was
>getting at, though you're right about the game-state-shutdown issue being
>raised, too.
>
>--Scoff!
>
>> Dude...Rule 14 regulates how a Player forfeits, and it takes
>> precedence over Rule 18.  That means your action wasn't legal
>> in the first place. So the question wasn't really the
>> legality of your action...the question was whether the game
>> state could be sufficiently altered in the short run by an
>> illegal move that it couldn't be quashed by legal means.
>>
>> Though I still think the Administrator has a tofuload of
>> unregulated power available...
>>
>> 						Glotmorf
>>
>>
>>
>>