On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, omd wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> > Gratuitous: The first method being limited to the announcer is an
> > inherent part of it, and similarly without-objection is an inherent
> > part of the second. Past exceptions to this common-sense approach
> > have depended on alternate constructions, e.g. "the Vizier can do
> > anything that an officer can do" allowing em to resign an office
> > held by someone else.
>
> Gratuitous: It seems to me that "make ais523 inactive" is the action,
> ais523 is the actor, and "by announcement or without objection" is the
> method - if ais523 made emself inactive, and then someone used a
> dictatorship rule to make ais523 inactive, you would say they took the
> same action.* The rule refers to the possibility of the action, not
> the actor or method.
Additional gratuitous (since the judge might not have followed the COE):
It has been discovered that R2130 contains the text "Changes to Activity
are Secured." R2130 is power-2. By R1688:
A Rule that secures a change, action, or value (hereafter the
securing Rule) thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that
change or action, or to set or modify that value, except as
allowed by an Instrument with Power greater than or equal to the
change's Power Threshold.
The Slave Golems Rule is also power-2, and reads:
The owner of a Slave Golem CAN cause it to take
actions that are not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE by announcement.
This shifts the burden somewhat so that the Slave Golems rule must
explicitly allow the change. But "otherwise" does not explicitly
allow, in fact it defers to other rules (like R1688 on security).
-G.
