On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2008/5/14 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > I win the game. > > > > > > ehird > > > > > > > I initiate an inquiry CFJ on the statement: "In the message archived > > at the URL > <http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-May/010573.html>, > > ehird won the game." > > > > Evidence: > > > > There are only two rules that could prevent a player from winning the > > game merely by announcing it: rule 2186/0 and rule 101/7. In addition, > > it must be established that it is possible to win the game merely by > > announcing it. > > > > Rule 101/7(ii) allows players to take actions which are not regulated > > (and precedent seems to be that in general regulated actions cannot be > > taken except by virtue of rule 101/7). Therefore, if it is shown that > > rule 2186/0 is not a problem, and that the action of winning the game > > by announcement is not regulated, then an attempt to win the game by > > announcement must succeed. > > > > Rule 2140(c) implies that no entity with a power less than 3 can > > modify any substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than > > its own, defining a "substantive" aspect of an instrument as any > > aspect that affects the instrument's operation. Therefore, in order to > > show that rule 2186/0 does not prevent a player winning the game by > > announcement, it needs only be shown that given that winning the game > > by announcement is not regulated, that part of rule 2186/0 affects a > > > It's clear that R2186 regulates winning the game in general if it at > all possible for any rule to do so. It plainly satisfies R2151(b)'s > criteria "the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied, > then some player is permitted to perform the action", the conditions > being satisfying a Winning Condition and not satisfying any Losing > Condition. Seriously arguing that rules somehow need to regulate every > more specific version is ridiculous, I don't think you'd agree that > "deregistering ehird by wearing a hat" is unregulated. Hm. Immediately after sending that I see that that's a bad example because it modifies recordkeepor information. So, I'll substitute "changing the text of a private contract by wearing a hat" as a more suitable ridiculous example.
-woggle
