On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:31 PM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 17:13 -0700, omd wrote: >> If that's true, then deregistering someone violates their right to >> participate in the fora, since it disallows the vast majority of game >> actions. > Nonplayers don't have a right of participation in the fora.
They do before they're (possibly unsuccessfully) deregistered. >> "an attempt to perform any Agoran action" is much more general than >> "posting a message with the new ruleset". In any 'normal' nomic, you >> would not interpret a rule that says "posting a message with the new >> ruleset" as meaning "posting any message (the message's text is the >> new ruleset)", it's pathological; no reason to do so here, since there >> is no reasonable alternate interpretation of rule 2. > Huh? "an attempt to perform an Agoran action" is much more /specific/; > it requires an Agoran action, rather than anything that can be > interpreted as a ruleset. Oh, please. >> > If your rulesets have to be labelled as rulesets, then my counter >> > increases have to be labelled as counter increases. You used pretty much >> > the same wording in both cases. >> >> not really. > > In other words, "yes and I can't think of a counterargument". "yes and I made the counter-argument as a response to the same argument you made above" >> > Fourth, I am required in general to take Agoran actions via various >> > rules (e.g. rule 2158, which has higher power than the unnumbered rule >> > that omd is trying to prosecute me under). Thus, rule 1504(e) is not >> > satisfied. >> >> Not these particular actions. > > You didn't specify particular actions in the statement of the CFJ. The CFJ is not about whether you would always violate the rule by doing anything matching the statement, but whether you did violate the rule via a specific action that I'm identifying (at least, the kind of wording I used is standard form for criminal cases).
