| Orc In A Spacesuit on 18 Nov 2002 16:20:03 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: CFI |
On with Glotmorf's Analysis:
At the time of the incident in question, the first line of Rule 578, subsection C, read: "Actions in this rule are not the only actions that societies may take." This statement mandates that societies can take actions other than those listed in Rule 578, but does not in any way regulate what those other actions can be. Therefore, by Rule 18, "whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Ruleset is permitted and unregulated," so societies can take any action at all.
Hmm. "Actions in this rule are not the only actions that societies may take."This senctence regulates all actions societies can take, although it doesn't really do much in the regulation. However, it does regulate, and therefore Rule 18 does not apply.
The rest is made moot by this point. However, here's a few more particular counters:
The second line of Rule 18 reads: "Changing the Rules is permitted only as explicitly or implicitly described by a Rule other than this Rule or a set of Rules not including this Rule." Since the line from Rule 578, subsection C, says societies can take any action, it implies societies can change rules, thus satisfying the "or implicitly" requirement of the line from Rule 18. Therefore, societies are permitted by Rule 578 to change rules.
"only as explicitly or implicitly described by a Rule"It is not described in any rule that Societies can change rules. Nor is there any hint of this description. All the sentence does is talk about permission, in "may" take actions. There is absolutly no description of rule changing. Therefore Glotmorf's point is invalid.
This, however, would be true even if Rule 18 conflicted with Rule 578, since both rules have the same Chutzpah, and Rule 33 states, "If two or more rules have equal Chutzpah, the rule with the highest identification number takes precedence." Therefore, Rule 578 would take priority.
If the first argument I stated (about regulation) is ruled true, then this is all moot. However, if it's not, here is a counter for this:
Rule 33 also states:"The unconditional permitting of an action is a Blanket Permission. The conditional prohibiting of an action is a Specific Restriction. A Specific Restriction for an action is not considered to be in conflict with a Blanket Permission for that action, unless the implementation of the Specific Restriction eliminates any possible circumstance in which the action can be performed." Therefore there are no conflicts; changing rules is nicely prohibited except as described in the rules.
The rest of Glotmorf's chain of events is totally moot, as I'm pretty sure one, if not more, of my above arguments is true.
Respectfully, Orc In A Spacesuit _________________________________________________________________MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
_______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss