Michael wrote:
The heart of my argument is that all of the rules' "deemings" *are*
regulated, so you can't add to or change them.
And the heart of my argument is that there's nothing in the rules
to blanketly regulate every act of the verb "to deem", so there are
deemings that are unregulated, and thus players have the privilege
of performing them.
Moreover, the class of "deemings" so regulated is broad enough to
include all possible rule annotations.
I'm sorry, I just can't extrapolate the fact that rules annotations
can deem something to imply that the whole act of deeming is regulated
and therefore forbidden.
Just as, I said before, implying that a rule can "change" something
doesn't imply that the act of "changing" everything or anything is
regulated. Okay, we're talking in circles now, I think the arguments
are pretty well covered?
what are the consequences? What aspects of the
game-state change, and how is our behaviour required to change in
response?
We are required to judge statements on pineappleness to be true,
or dismiss them as not applicable to the rules.
Which is meaningless, until I reveal that there's a binding
agreement surrounding someone being a pineapple, etc. on which
case the matter can no longer be dismissed. I think,
at this point, outside of such a test case, there's no way of
resolving our quibble.
-Goethe
