Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] another CFI, "-2"

[Araltaln <smgafkjen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Glotmorf wrote:

> Tsk.  We just had a relatively recent CFI that said 
> recognition and the need for same is defined by precedent.  
> Granted that's not explicit, but the justification for that 
> CFI cited the instances in the rules where recognition was 
> defined.  That, taken together with the default case, 
> regulates recognition.
>
> So, les'n you want to bribe a judge (which *ahem* there's game 
> precedent for...), this ain't gonna fly.
>
> 						Glotmorf

While you can certainly establish what an action is by precedent ("At 
some level, we need to use English words that haven't been officially 
defined lest we be unable to define anything." --Zarpint), I have a hard 
time believing you can establish a Rule merely on precedent.

Rule 11/4 states both "A Rulebook is a collection of Rules." and "The 
Ruleset is a Rulebook", and 18/3 states "Whatever is not prohibited or 
regulated by the Ruleset is permitted and unregulated." Precedent may 
attempt to regulate it, but that's not a method outlined in the Ruleset 
to change Rules.

There's no (well, very little) room for unwritten Rules in Nomic, as far 
as I can tell.

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