On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:21 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Given: We accept that the parsing of R2192 is generally (monsterrulechange >> if (rulechange if permittedbyrules)). > > I dislike this assumption, and think that "may", in both Rule 2141 and > Rule 2192, means "CAN".
I dislike the assumption that anything non-MMI means something MMI. >> 2. By R105, R2193 CANNOT currently, specifically change Rules. Rule >> changes can only happen *where permitted* > > I'd say this is permitted by R2192 itself. Rule 2141 says the Monster > CAN amend rules, but only generally (not specifically), so it doesn't > count as the Rules permitting it. More accurately under the judge's interpretation, I think, R2141 says that the Monster is permitted to permit itself to amend rules. > But Rule 2192 specifically says > that the MS CAN act on behalf of the Monster to take actions including > changing rules, which is only possible if the Monster itself CAN > change rules. So it turns CAN, generally, to CAN, specifically. R2192 does not specifically say that the actions the MS can take on behalf of the Monster include changing rules. >> and this argues that rule >> changes must be contained and authorized in a specific location and >> way within the rules, e.g. within the rules text somewhere. > > If rule changes are actions, they are (hence this CFJ in the first > place). Do you argue that ratification of a bad ruleset fails because > Rule 1551 doesn't explicitly say it can change rules? It doesn't need to. It says it modifies gamestate. Therefore it does, in whatever form that entails. R2192 does not say it changes rules. Therefore it does not change rules. >> 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)? > > Why does general may meaning CAN lead to false? Rule 105 CANNOT is > contradicted by Rule 2192 CAN. "May" does not mean CAN under either of the interpretations considered in the quoted paragraph. -root
