On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 4:28 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> CFJ 2002 found that rule 2193 was the Monster, and nobody objected to >>> this at the time. Therefore, rule 2192 implies that the Mad Scientist >>> CAN act on behalf of rule 2193 to take any action that rule 2193 "may >>> take". Rule 2141 lists the actions that a rule "may take", in general, >>> and there is no reason why it would be different for rule 2193 in >>> particular. >> >> No, it doesn't. It lists possible effects that rule 2193 can have on >> the rules. Nothing in rule 2141 describes those effects as actions. > > Er, I was actually looking at R105, not R2141, so the above is > probably not relevant.
Ah, but it is relevant for making rule changes. R105 doesn't allow rule changes to be performed by any other mechanism than the one it provides, and it provides effects, not actions. So I'll grant that the non-rule-change actions would have worked had they been performed on behalf of the Monster, but I think the rule-change actions failed. -root
