On Sun, 26 Feb 2012, omd wrote: > 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",
You're right, apologies for that bit; relying on the Security argument, I shouldn't have said "tenuous" for Regulation Regulations, as it implied that I considered it and found it weak, when what I really meant was that I hadn't considered it and didn't mean to set a precedent as that's a case for another day. Though second time around I did consider it for your benefit :).
