On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 08:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> If the only action is "publishing >> certain information" (and any publication of said information is >> automatically such a Notice) that's covered by R101; other rules may it >> ILLEGAL but not IMPOSSIBLE. But if we take the view that what's actually >> happening is that an Entity (the Notice) is being created[*], then the >> creation is a regulated act, and Rules may make it IMPOSSIBLE to create >> the entity. I don't see anything in the rules generally to decide >> between these two interpretations (other than the usual "tradition and >> good of the game"). > > I think, at the same time, we should fix such confusions such as > submitting a partnership as a proposal, to make clear whether that sort > of thing works or not. IMO, we should divorce game-defined entities from > the actual text of messages; instead of publishing an NoV, for instance, > we should cause players to announce that they create an NoV with > particular information, and then the NoV comes into existence...
Speaking of proposals, I think the closest thing we have to answering the question for NoVs in the current ruleset is the recent controversy on "is a Proposal its text, or a container created by the publication of an initial text?" The end result of that (now legislatively clarified) was the latter, so there's a precedent that NoVs and the like are created entities and their creation is regulated. (I think; there was so much text written there I can't remember what was a precedent and what was mere discussion). By the way ais523, what do you think of the other question, on whether "MAY with N Support" in general invokes dependent actions thus turning a MAY into a CAN? -Goethe
