Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2890 assigned to coppro
omd wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Sean Hunt > wrote: === CFJ 2890 (Interest Index = 0) It is generally POSSIBLE for me to make a proposal Undistributable for a fee. >>> TRUE. Not being permitted to perform something is different than being >>> forbidden from performing it. The rule thus means "a player CAN do this >>> unless some other rule says he can't". It is, thus, a manner of subtly >>> deferring to any rule, including one of lower power. > > I intend to appeal this with two support. Making a proposal > undistributable modifies information for which some player is required > to be a recordkeepor, so R2125 forbids me from doing it except as > allowed by the rules. > > Evidence: > > e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which > some player is required to be a recordkeepor. Such an action > CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the > rules. Gratuitous: R2125 and R2283 together can be interpreted as either generally allowing fee-based actions (R2125's "except as allowed by the rules" is triggered by R2283 and R2283's "not otherwise forbidden" is satisfied by R2125) or prohibiting them. Both of these are circularly consistent, thus common sense etc. favors the former over the latter.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2890 assigned to coppro
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Side note: When I proposed this, I thought for a while about sneaking > an "only" between "CAN" and "perform" for the final draft and hoping > no-one noticed it would shut off all other ways of doing things > associated with a fee. Didn't, though, probably a good thing here. Voting against a dictatorship proposal has a fee of 100 ergs. :)
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2890 assigned to coppro
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, omd wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > As "forbidden" is not defined as directly associated with a particular > > MMI mode, and (in general English) could be applied to either CAN or SHALL, > > I'd say context is important. In this case, the "otherwise" is explicitly > > and directly presented as the opposite to CAN in the same sentence, so here > > means OTHERWISE CANNOT. > > I suppose you could say that "otherwise" - hypothetically, if Rule > 2282 didn't exist - I COULD perform the action "for a charge of 2 > ergs", whatever that means; that makes the action "allowed by the > rules", so R2125 doesn't apply; and then Rule 2283 turns "for a charge > of 2 ergs" into 'by announcement stating the fee'. Actually, here's the text with an added referent: If the Rules associate a non-negative cost, price, charge, or fee with an action, that action is a fee-based action. [...] To perform a fee-based action, a Player (the Actor) who is not otherwise forbidden to perform the [FEE-BASED] action CAN... which makes it possible to read as "as long as the rules don't otherwise forbid performing the action as a fee-based action, by saying for example "the Pariah CANNOT pay a fee to do this". It's a stretch, perhaps! Side note: When I proposed this, I thought for a while about sneaking an "only" between "CAN" and "perform" for the final draft and hoping no-one noticed it would shut off all other ways of doing things associated with a fee. Didn't, though, probably a good thing here. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2890 assigned to coppro
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:42 PM, omd wrote: > > I intend to appeal this with two support. Making a proposal > > undistributable modifies information for which some player is required > > to be a recordkeepor, so R2125 forbids me from doing it except as > > allowed by the rules. > > > > Evidence: > > > > e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which > > some player is required to be a recordkeepor. Such an action > > CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the > > rules. > > IMO, "X is forbidden to Y" means "X SHALL NOT Y", not "X CAN NOT Y". > See R869's "forbidden or prevented" to cover both. R2125's usage is > probably a problem, of course, since it makes it IMPOSSIBLE to pay a > fee to perform an ILLEGAL action. As "forbidden" is not defined as directly associated with a particular MMI mode, and (in general English) could be applied to either CAN or SHALL, I'd say context is important. In this case, the "otherwise" is explicitly and directly presented as the opposite to CAN in the same sentence, so here means OTHERWISE CANNOT. IMO, the "except as modified by the rules" in 2125e and the "otherwise forbidden" in 2283 attempt to defer to each other, although I find coppro's argument a reasonable reading as well. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2890 assigned to coppro
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:42 PM, omd wrote: > I intend to appeal this with two support. Making a proposal > undistributable modifies information for which some player is required > to be a recordkeepor, so R2125 forbids me from doing it except as > allowed by the rules. > > Evidence: > > e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which > some player is required to be a recordkeepor. Such an action > CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the > rules. IMO, "X is forbidden to Y" means "X SHALL NOT Y", not "X CAN NOT Y". See R869's "forbidden or prevented" to cover both. R2125's usage is probably a problem, of course, since it makes it IMPOSSIBLE to pay a fee to perform an ILLEGAL action.
