Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be legal?

[Jonathan David Amery <jdamery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Quoth Glotmorf,
> > This is the same argument uin used with eir glasses of champagne.  My
> > argument's the same.  Just because a particular action is legal, and that
> > action requires the legality of another action, that doesn't mean the other
> > action is legal.  The Charter you've described in your Charter Prop states  the
> > method by which people can be kicked out of your club; it doesn't say it's
> > legal to actually perform that method.
> 
> It's not the same at all. The Champagne case deals with the legality of
> performing actions on nonexistent objects. The LOOP, however, declares that
> players may perform a certain action, and thus they may. The analogous
> situation with Champagne would be if a player had a glass of Champagne and
> tried to drink it, and you claimed that it was illegal because while the
> Alcohol rule says that players may drink Champagne by posting a message to a
> public forum, nowhere do the rules explicitly state that players may post
> msgs to public forums.
> 
 But the Charter of LOOP isn't part of the rules, so since the rules
don't specify a way for LOOP or its players to take money from the
Gremlin Fund they can't.

 WC.