Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Exceptio Probat Regulam

[Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 15:23 -0500, Craig Daniel wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, entitled "The Exception Proves the Rule":
> 
> {Create a rule, entitled "Exceptio Probat Regulam", with the following text:
> {If the rules specify a specific instance of a phenomenon but are
> silent on the more general examples, the phenomenon does not generally
> apply. [[eg, the fact that Wonko of the 4th nweek of the nyear is
> Agoran Silly Hat Day means that no other day is Agoran Silly Hat
> Day.]]}
> 
> /* The things about the rules this changes are few and far between;
> most of them are being made to more explicitly conform to the common
> sense interpretation that I'm sure we all believe in anyhow. For
> example: Rule 5e2 states that "All Ownable Game Objects have an Owner,
> which is either a Legal Entity or Nobody." Currently it could be
> argued - falsely, I think - that Nobody owns the Unownable game
> objects. After this rule passes, they explicitly lack an Owner, even
> Nobody, rather than implicitly lacking one.
> 
> I was originally going to go find things where this changed something
> other than making the common-sense interpretation explicitly correct,
> and twiddle the ones that wouldn't benefit from such a change - but
> honestly I can't find any. I looked. */}
> 
> I'd love suggestions for a better way to phrase the EPR rule, btb.

Wouldn't this make the Laser Sharpener work? As far as I can tell, it
doesn't, but only because there isn't an EPR in the ruleset and so
either it failed due to the ISITDID part of 5e10 failing, or (if it
worked) due to the temporary patch I tried to enact via dictatorship.
-- 
ais523

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