On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > Disputant omd's arguments are either purposefully or idiotically > obtuse. I have clearly and directly stated in my original > judgement why security is applicable in spite of the rules in > question being >=2. It is clear in context that the "otherwise" > merely adds a method ("by announcement of owner") to things that > are POSSIBLE for a second class player to do given the rest of the > ruleset. As the "otherwise" clause does not in itself add a > single new permission, but only a method for the owner, the fact > that the clause is power-2 does not get around the security. To > twist the meaning to adding broader general permissions is a > willful misreading and an unsupported interpretation.
Strong words. Your original judgement clearly states that if security was not applicable the judgement might need to be reconsidered because "the implied limitation via Regulation Regulations is a little more tenuous", while I pointed out that the (explicit) limitation in Regulation Regulations uses the same wording and is equivalent for the purposes of this case (Regulation Regulations does not use any specific wording about 'must satisfy the conditions' or 'allowed by that rule', it is the same "allowed by the rules"). > However, you may not agree with this. Therefore, I'll formally > add the argument that does not depend on Security, which provides > the same result using Regulation Regulations. The argument should be the same whether it depends on Security or Regulation Regulations.
