Maud wrote:
> The legality of a transfer has no bearing on the validity of a Notice
> of Transfer.
So if a later rule B says "A player may not transfer Fee to Foo"
then whether a successful transfer overrules rule B would depend on
the relative precedence of the two rules and may differ case-by
case. Messy.
> It seems that these days people want illegal actions to be impossible
> to perform. I don't understand why. They are distinct concepts.
I agree:
"Legal and possible": Everybody's happy.
"Illegal but possible": It happens, but it's against the Rules.
"Legal but impossible": It doesn't happen, even though Rules allow.
"Illegal and impossible": Impossibility outweights illegality since
it can't be done and therefore no illegal
action, we don't punish "attempts".
But what's the default when the rules just say "X shall not do foo"?
Our current precedent (not actually spelled out in the rules)
seems to be:
- Actions where the attempt is the action are illegal but possible.
- Actions where the attempt is not the action are impossible.
- Inactions are illegal but possible (inactions are always possible).
The fact that we default to "Actions where the attempt
is not the action are impossible" is implied by the fact that we
feel the need to explictly specify whenever that's NOT true,
eg., use phrases like "then the action shall stand" to
change "impossible" into possible but illegal (the exceptions
prove the rule).
-Goethe
