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

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 5/22/02 at 10:08 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Jonathan David Amery,
>
>>> 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.
>
>It's part of the rules for me. The rules say I must abide by my club's
>charter.
>
>--
>Wonko

Yeah, but r578, which is the core rule for Clubs, says, "The internal structure of a society is freeform, restricted only be [sic] the rules of the game." That means, just because it's in a Club's rules that such-and-such is the way to do something, said such-and-such procedure still has to abide by the B Nomic rules.

And while you must abide by your Club's charter, there's nothing that's forcing you to oust anyone. :)

						Glotmorf