On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:44 PM Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 18:32 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > >> After 3557 I suggested that, whatever the rules imply now, we should put >> this in directly and legislatively (and an informal poll suggested that >> the preference was *for* the implication). A couple MMI changes have been >> proposed by others but I think they all had a couple bugs and got voted >> down, I'll try my hand on solid fix proposal by tomorrow... >> > > I was led astray since the reconsidered judgment of 3557 had not been > entered on the CFJ database; G. already raised the arguments that I was > going to raise (I noted, however, that 2120's actual judgment doesn't > suffer from the flaws G. pointed out recently; the caller's arguments were > what was flawed I think). After reading Aris's second judgment, I think it > is flaws. "It is therefore likely that if the gamemakes it possible for a > person to do something, it makes it possible for them > to do it via the Fora. Where there is a SHALL without a means, it implies > "and CAN by announcement"." This is a significant reading into the rules, > far broader than CFJ 1765 was, which was about interpreting a particular > rule. Moreover, it raises questions of precedence: if a high-level rule > requires something, but a low-level rule forbids it, what is the result? > Does the high-level rule requiring something necessarily override the > lower-level rule forbidding it? > > Moreover, the judgement states that CAN implies CAN by announcement. This > is a logical consequence of (SHALL => CAN by announcement), but directly > contradictory to precedent of CFJ 3425. As Murphy indicated in the > arguments, this was far from the first time it was called. There is no > reason to disrupt this precedent. Given that CAN is not sufficient to imply > CAN by announcement, imputing that meaning to SHALL would be quite > something else altogether. Moreover, it would cause difficulty with rules, > such as the one regarding auctions, which intend specifically to require a > player to do something which may or may not be impossible. It would mean > that SHALL but CANNOT would be almost impossible to construct except > through precedence conflicts. > > Since there is, surprisingly, no time limit for creating a Moot, I intend, > with 2 support, to enter the judgment of CFJ 3557 into Moot. > > I oppose (not that it does anything). I rather like my judgement. BTW, as I understand it, SHALL but CANNOT has generally held to be impossible, except where the situation is somehow the fault of the player under the SHALL. -Aris
