DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: legal

2007-08-01 Thread Zefram
comex wrote: >Amend Rule 2160 by replacing 'POSSIBLE' with 'LEGAL'. At best this is a recipe for confusion. We have carefully chosen situations where something is POSSIBLE but ILLEGAL in order to avoid getting into a mess. This change would call into question many such actions, in a crisis, sole

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: legal

2007-08-01 Thread Ed Murphy
comex wrote: Perhaps I need to read the archives, but I am uncertain of what is the default for regulated actions. Game custom is CANNOT and (not MAY NOT). A simple example of an action allowed only with CAN is in Rule 1868; one allowed only with "MAY" is in Rule 1607. If the actions CAN b

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: legal

2007-08-02 Thread comex
On Wednesday 01 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote > Neither CAN nor MAY is explicitly defined by Rule 2152, so ordinary > language applies. Game custom for both is (not CANNOT) and (not > MAY NOT). This is severely broken. Certainly MAY/CAN are not capitalized merely for emphasis. signature.asc De

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: legal

2007-08-02 Thread Ed Murphy
comex wrote: On Wednesday 01 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote Neither CAN nor MAY is explicitly defined by Rule 2152, so ordinary language applies. Game custom for both is (not CANNOT) and (not MAY NOT). This is severely broken. Certainly MAY/CAN are not capitalized merely for emphasis. They