Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Bnomic-private] Sorry, I'm out

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/23/02 at 3:05 PM bd wrote:

>On Sunday 22 September 2002 11:03 pm, Wonko wrote:
>> Looks like we have ourselves a genuine ambiguity.
>
>Precedence takes place. r393 explicitly defera to all rules, and if it
>didn't,
>it has a higher rule number. r18 takes precedence.

Ordinarily I'd agree, but Wonko's argument is not that one takes precedence over the other (which r18 obviously does over r393), but whether one rule creates a situation in which the other rule doesn't apply.  If, according to r393, everything is by default prohibited, then one could argue that everything is regulated, in which case r18, which permits the unregulated, can never apply.  If, on the other hand, r18, by way of taking precedence, controls the situation of an unregulated act before r393 can even be considered, then everything is either explicitly prohibited, explicitly permitted, implicitly prohibited via explicit permission, or permitted by r18, and therefore r393 should never get invoked.

My argument in the CFI is that rule-stated manipulability of some objects implies manipulability of other objects, and since r393 defers to "all rules" it defers to the rules' implications too; whereas, since these things are only implicitly regulated rather than explicitly regulated, they are unregulated for the purposes of r18.

Thus, for example, since there is no rule mentioning either urination or Joel's computer, there is no rule for r393 to defer to, so urinating on Joel's computer is prohibited by r393; r18 doesn't enter into it because urination isn't a recognized game action and Joel's computer isn't a recognized game entity.  Had the rule banning urinating on Joel's computer been passed, there'd be a possibility that urination (now recognized as an action in the context of the game) could be done on some other object, and Joel's computer (now recognized as an entity in the context of the game) could have other things done to it.

If the CFI gets ruled False, then a rule that makes it illegal to urinate on Joel's computer is a 100% do nothing, since it not only makes illegal an action that wouldn't be recognized anyway, it also doesn't imply any legal action.

Either way it should clear some things up.

						Glotmorf


_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss