DIS: Re: BUS: Does SHALL imply CAN?
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:47, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I call for judgement on the following statement: This CFJ has ID number 2146. I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the CotC to assign that CFJ an ID number of 2146. I call for judgement on the following statement: This CFH has ID number 1. I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the CotC to assign that CFJ an ID number of 1. INVALID because 1 is not greater than any orderly CFJ ID number. -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Does SHALL imply CAN?
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:47, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statement: This CFJ has ID number
2146.
I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the CotC to assign that
CFJ an ID number of 2146.
I call for judgement on the following statement: This CFH has ID number
1.
I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the CotC to assign that
CFJ an ID number of 1.
These are linked assignments; I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise
for the CotC to assign them both to comex. (This should suit eir general
playing style, after all.)
Arguments:
See rule 2193, which reads in part:
{{{
Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
particular office (deputise for that office) if:
(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the
office is vacant, would so require if the office were
filled
}}}
I think Murphy was the only person who voted against the recent proposal
to add that to the rule. As a rather obvious scam, I added it without
the restrictions that would require the action to be one that the CotC
CAN do, and also removed the time limit; therefore, the deputisation
works even though I'm not the CotC and even though an ID number of 1
would be INVALID if actually assigned by the person forced to assign an
ID number to it. (I can act on behalf of the Monster due to rule 2192;
possibly this is the first time anyone has done so.) In other words,
nowadays SHALL implies CAN; if anyone SHALL do something, then I CAN do
that thing. (I don't quite think this leads to a dictatorship, but I can
certainly cause healthy amounts of chaos if needed; if this scam works,
and I don't see why it wouldn't, I suggest that the rest of Agora bribe
me with something nice and permanent to persuade me to give the power
up.)
Oh, I see you address the INVALID bit here. So easy counterargument:
it is plainly NOT required for the CotC to assign the ID number 1 or
any other invalid assignment. In fact, the CotC CANNOT do that and
SHALL NOT do that (by virtue of being obliged to assign the smallest
ID number possible, which cannot be done simulatenously with assigning
an INVALID number).
-woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Does SHALL imply CAN?
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 11:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote: Oh, I see you address the INVALID bit here. So easy counterargument: it is plainly NOT required for the CotC to assign the ID number 1 or any other invalid assignment. In fact, the CotC CANNOT do that and SHALL NOT do that (by virtue of being obliged to assign the smallest ID number possible, which cannot be done simulatenously with assigning an INVALID number). Arguably, there are two requirements: the CotC SHALL assign an ID number, and the CotC SHALL assign the smallest possible legal ID number. The Monster was deputising based on the first, not on the second. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Does SHALL imply CAN?
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:04 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arguably, there are two requirements: the CotC SHALL assign an ID number, and the CotC SHALL assign the smallest possible legal ID number. The Monster was deputising based on the first, not on the second. It doesn't matter what e was deputising based on, the fact remains that Rule 2161 says that assigning a number less than any existing orderly number is INVALID, and R2193's CAN doesn't override that; 2161 is Power 2 and 2193 is Power 1.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Does SHALL imply CAN?
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 14:22 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:04 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arguably, there are two requirements: the CotC SHALL assign an ID number, and the CotC SHALL assign the smallest possible legal ID number. The Monster was deputising based on the first, not on the second. It doesn't matter what e was deputising based on, the fact remains that Rule 2161 says that assigning a number less than any existing orderly number is INVALID, and R2193's CAN doesn't override that; 2161 is Power 2 and 2193 is Power 1. No, rule 2161 says such an assignment; my assignment was sufficiently unusual that I don't think it qualifies as such an assignment, and therefore is not forbidden by rule 2161. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Does SHALL imply CAN?
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote: I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the CotC to assign that CFJ an ID number of 1. It's fun to see the Monster add up to something, been hoping it would :) I mean, it's not a monster until it comes alive and starts attacking and we have to chase it with pitchforks! That being said, I'm not so sure this is a huge scam in terms of power granted. I mean, this makes you a super-officer, but you can't do anything that another officer isn't already required to do. In fact it's more restrictive. If you do something that an other officer CAN but SHALL NOT do, it fails, because the monster CAN only perform duties other officers are *required* to perform. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Does SHALL imply CAN?
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 11:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, ais523 wrote: I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the CotC to assign that CFJ an ID number of 1. It's fun to see the Monster add up to something, been hoping it would :) I mean, it's not a monster until it comes alive and starts attacking and we have to chase it with pitchforks! That being said, I'm not so sure this is a huge scam in terms of power granted. I mean, this makes you a super-officer, but you can't do anything that another officer isn't already required to do. In fact it's more restrictive. If you do something that an other officer CAN but SHALL NOT do, it fails, because the monster CAN only perform duties other officers are *required* to perform. -Goethe No, not a massive scam, just a nice bonus. Anyway, I like the flavour of the Monster being able to do anything it wants (within massive limits, of course). It makes it more monstrous! -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Does SHALL imply CAN?
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, rule 2161 says such an assignment; my assignment was sufficiently unusual that I don't think it qualifies as such an assignment, and therefore is not forbidden by rule 2161. I disagree. R2193 only empowers the Monster to deputise for an office as if e held that office. If the Monster held the office of CotC, it would not be able to assign that particular ID number, and therefore it cannot assign it via deputisation either. And yes, I do believe that R2160(d) is redundant. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mill 5/8=2 and 5*5=3. I harvest the number of CFJ 2137 for 2 WRV. I create two WRV in Pavitra's possession. Why? 2137 wasn't eligible. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
