On 4/28/08, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is interesting to note that, by referring to your comment as > "truthfully" describing the game, you assert the nonrulehood of > 2206 *in a public forum*.
It was merely a hypothetical question. :D > Aside from that, this case differs from CFJ1738 in two interesting > ways. First, it deals with the discussion forum instead of public > fora. Second, R2206 only restricts specific subjects, not whole > modes of communication. The knave rule arguably made participation > of any kind in the public fora illegal; R2206 permits the vast > majority of normal actions. Perhaps, but if hypothetically R2206 weren't a real rule, not only would I be forbidden from this discussion without much circumlocution, but, if I were elected Rulekeepor, I would be unable to publish an accurate report. Also, in this hypothetical case, the contract's only purpose would be to prevent players' participation in the fora, and unlike R2206, there is *no way* (including by remaining in the discussion forum) I would be able to get around its proscription. Um, I suppose that if I left the contract, I could speak more freely on the issue.
