On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 4. So, the question is, does the "may" in "The Mad Scientist CAN act on > behalf of the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take..." > mean the general, potentially-capable "may" (leading to false as the > R105 CANNOT leads to a R2142 "may not") or a specific, direct, MAY > (leading to possible true iff R105 can is interpreted as CANNOT but not > MAY NOT)? > > a. I've presented thorough arguments, based on the broad and general > quality of the rule, for *not* interpreting R2141's may as MAY. > In Rule 2192, it is conspicuous that CAN and SHALL are capitalized > but may is not, showing that this rules was MMI-aware, but > didn't use the "MAY" (exceptio probat regulam). This argues for > interpreting the same general "may" here as in R2141, and as I > discuss above, this generic, non-MMI "may" can be blocked (turned > in to "may not") by a MAY NOT *or* a CANNOT. So by R105, "may" and > therefore "permittedbyrules" is currently false. > > b. It is a strong custom, and part of the rules, to interpret rules > specifically as they exist now. When speaking of capability or > permissibility, we do not treat a judgement on "It is possible to > do X" as trivially true based on the argument "it is always possible > to change to rules so as to do X." (I believe there was some > precedent on this a while back but can't recall where). Rather, we > ask about X assuming the Rules are fixed at the time of the CFJ, and > for that may = MAY and CAN = currently false.
c. That the "may" is not MAY is also backed up by the prior judgement in CFJ 2230. -root
