Brief for Moot on CFJ 3429
I recommend FALSE.
Let's look again at omd's attempted scam [1]. I claim that it is merely
a trick, not a scam, relying on an equivocation.
In the text of Rule 2437 [2], it is clear that the intended sense of
"pertaining to" is "belonging to as a part", not merely "related to". In
the very same sentence, the rule establishes a notion of parthood of the
PoA for entities. The immediately following restriction of the Dungeon
Master's abilities clearly pertains to this notion of parthood.
omd's trick was believable, because "it is certainly a rule pertaining
to the PoA" is an obvious fact. However, omd's conclusion does not
follow, due to the equivocation. Rule 2437 is indeed an entity
pertaining to the PoA, but not in the sense of Rule 2437.
Footnotes:
[1] Fourth, I note that I consider Rule 2437 an entity pertaining to the
PoA. (It is certainly a rule pertaining to the PoA, and a rule is a
type of entity.) And rule text is a property. Accordingly, I
hereby provide public notice that I intend to cause Rule 2437 to
amend itself (set its text) to read:...
[2] The Dungeon Master CAN by Announcement cause this rule to add or
remove entities to/from the PoA or set properties of entities
pertaining to the PoA, unless rules to the contrary exist.
