Yeah that's right, I've certainly come across that distinction playing games like magic: the gathering. But there is still a difference which there isn't here. In that game, if you play a card that you can't, it goes back to your hand. If you cheat, you get kicked out of the store. The cards themselves have both can and may and cannot and may not on them, all of which mean intra-game consequences. Here, even breaking a rule will only have consequences in the game. So that's why we need the terms of art MAY and CAN. And we should use them wherever possible. But that's also why allow (which is defined in dictionaries as "permit, let happen"), is very hard to define by its ordinary meaning.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > Sure that works too. I just think CAN is way overloaded so I prefer > very distinct redirections with distinct names, but that's a style > thing. Regardless, main point is that you need to amend R2466. > > Impossible versus Illegal is a distinction common to boardgames, though > it's not often recognized linguistically - it's the difference between > "you can't play that card so just put it back in your hand" and "you > can't peek at my cards but oops you did it anyway - penalty." > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: >> Can't we just amend rule 2466 "If the rules mean that someone CAN act >> on behalf". Obviously this allow/permit language is troubling because >> the illegality/impossibility distinction we have is really just not >> used in the English language in general. You could say "parking here >> is not permitted" but you could physically move your car into that >> space. The double meaning only arises in our ruleset. >> >> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> > >> > >> > I wanted to emphasize the CAN issue here because it actually leads to >> > the opposite result of what you want! >> > >> > R2466 says if a rules 'allows' someone to act on behalf... that they >> > CAN by announcement [with these results]. The current R2532 directly >> > references this text by using 'is allowed' to act on behalf. Not >> > completely clear given that 'allow' can have many meanings, but it's a >> > direct mirror of the language used to invoke the full R2466 process. >> > >> > Now let's say you replace that with a CAN. But then you add some version >> > of "a player SHALL NOT make a zombie do ILLEGAL actions" as we've been >> > discussing. So the result is a player "CAN but SHALL NOT" have a zombie >> > do ILLEGAL actions. >> > >> > Which means (by Aris's original arguments) that a player is not >> > "allowed" to perform ILLEGAL act-on-behalf actions, because 'not allowed' >> > implies "MAY NOT/SHALL NOT" if interpreted by natural language. So the >> > R2466 methods of doing it by announcing doesn't work, because the player >> > "isn't allowed" to perform them. Which means e CANNOT perform illegal >> > actions and illegal action attempts automatically fail. >> > >> > And so we're right back where we started. >> > >> > >> > My suggestion is a whole new and clear and unique term of art. In the >> > past we've used "Power of Attorney" but others are possible. So >> > something like: >> > >> > In R2466: "If a Rule grants Power of Attorney ... then the player CAN >> > act on behalf by announcement with these results" >> > >> > And R2532: "A zombie's master is granted Power of Attorney over the >> > zombie". >> > >> > >> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> The thing about using the "is allowed to" language instead of CAN is >> >> that it triggers the whole method in R2466, that includes a CAN, >> >> specifies how to do it, and includes legal consequences. >> >> Putting a CAN here without all that language doesn't have a method >> >> (by announcement or what?) or explain the complicated legal >> >> consequences. Either stick with "is allowed to" here, or clarify >> >> R2466. >> >> >> >> This also fails to make a consequence to Masters for illegal behavior, >> >> so I would vote against it on those grounds. >> >> >> >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: >> >> > I create the following proposal. >> >> > >> >> > Title: Clearer & Better Zombies >> >> > AI: 2.0 >> >> > Text: In rule 2532, Zombies, replace the text "A zombie's master, if >> >> > another player, is allowed to act on behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the >> >> > zombie's agent) to perform LEGAL actions." with "A zombie's master, if >> >> > another player, CAN act on behalf of the zombie to perform actions" >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > From V.J. Rada >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
