DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:41:11 -0500
comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
> annotation:
> {
> Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
> cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
> }
Annotations != rules. The rules require the Rulekeepor to track annotations and
encourage em to do so, but it gives no particular legal force to the
annotations so tracked.
--
Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On 19 Nov 2008, at 00:19, Joshua Boehme wrote: Annotations != rules. The rules require the Rulekeepor to track annotations and encourage em to do so, but it gives no particular legal force to the annotations so tracked. But he can APPEND a historical annotation to a RULE'S TEXT. -> It becomes part of the rule's text => binding.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 19 Nov 2008, at 00:19, Joshua Boehme wrote: > >> Annotations != rules. The rules require the Rulekeepor to track >> annotations and encourage em to do so, but it gives no particular legal >> force to the annotations so tracked. > > But he can APPEND a historical annotation to a RULE'S TEXT. > > -> It becomes part of the rule's text => binding. The actual verbiage is "...the Rulekeepor CAN cause it to amend itself by adding a historical annotation...". At best, this is self-contradictory. The word "amend" implies that the text is changed; the word "annotation" implies that the text is not changed. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The actual verbiage is "...the Rulekeepor CAN cause it to amend itself > by adding a historical annotation...". At best, this is > self-contradictory. The word "amend" implies that the text is > changed; the word "annotation" implies that the text is not changed. The following is recognized as a historical annotation to Rule 101: [CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.] That is to say, the Rules should be interpreted such that players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions, as established by CFJ 24. The effects of this in a Rule are unclear (would this just legislate that CFJ 24 says players must ...?) but consider the following alternate annotation: Note: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions; this was established by CFJ 24. This too is an annotation (mw: "a note added by way of comment or explanation"): the note purports to explain what Rule 101 means, and it would be a reasonable addition to some sort of "annotated ruleset", perhaps as an introductory sentence to some text containing more information about the circumstances of the calling of CFJ 24.* What if this note was added to the text of the Rule itself? Note: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions; this was established by CFJ 24. Exactly the same text would serve in a Rule to create the explicit obligation to follow the Rules even in out-of-game actions. My annotation is similar: Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months, cause this rule to amend itself by announcement. Although in a Rule this text clearly is functional, it would equally well serve as an annotation to the rule, added to explain some CFJ: [Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months, cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.] If some CFJ decided that my scam worked this might be an appropriate annotation.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What if this note was added to the text of the Rule itself? > > Note: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions; > this was established by CFJ 24. > > Exactly the same text would serve in a Rule to create the explicit > obligation to follow the Rules even in out-of-game actions. Indeed, but as a part of the text it would no longer be an annotation. -root
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 19:19 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:41:11 -0500
> comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
> > annotation:
> > {
> > Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
> > cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
> > }
>
> Annotations != rules. The rules require the Rulekeepor to track
> annotations and encourage em to do so, but it gives no particular
> legal force to the annotations so tracked.
>
However, if, as in this case, the annotations are part of the rules,
they have legal force because they are part of the rules, irrelevant of
whether they are annotations.
It's probably worth pointing out that the typical sort of annotation in
the FLR has no effect merely because it isn't part of the rules
themselves and nothing gives it legal force or a positive Power. If an
annotation is part of a rule, as it is here, it has the same Power as
the rule in question and therefore is an instrument (or else part of an
instrument).
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Indeed, but as a part of the text it would no longer be an annotation. I disagree with you, but that interpretation's fine. In that case, the added text was a historical annotation before I added it to a Rule, so Rule 1051 let me add it, upon which it ceased to be a historical annotation.
