[H. CotC, I may be a little late in judging this but I intend to later
by tomorrow after comments.]
The caller's argument hinges on the definition of action, however
there is another consideration.
R2192 says in part The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of the Monster to
take any action that
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[It's also possible to base this on an existence argument: What is a Rule?
In the most Platonic basic sense, a Rule is its text. If a Rule's text
doesn't say it may do something, doing that something is not part of
its
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
I proto-intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support, because it is
not Agoran custom to sandbox rules like this. Also, eir two
arguments are in conflict: if one Rule specifically permits someone to
cause another Rule (which itself is silent) to effect Rule
Goethe wrote:
One major issue is that there is little precedent on the term generally
that seems to pepper the rules nowadays.
I thought there was a fair (if diffuse) amount of precedent to the
extent that generally X means X, except when something with the
authority to impose a specific
4 matches
Mail list logo
