If I read this right, all of this assumes that the secret rule is actually a rule of the contract. I never said it was, and in fact it is not.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I call for Judgement on the following statement: > > "It is impossible for a player to become Referee within the meaning of the > public contract that is the backing document for XP without failing to do > something that its paragraph 8 specifies that the Referee SHALL do in that > situation, under the current set of rules." > > My evidence that this should be judged TRUE: > > Rule 105/3 states that "This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules > can be created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a > rule or cease to be a rule." Therefore, the only way by which the Referee can > create a secret rule (and the set of all secret rules is necessarily a subset > of the set of all rules, according to normal English usage) is by virtue of > the methods provided in rule 105/3, or else by an instrument with sufficient > power to take precedence over it; rule 105/3 has power 3, and the backing > document for XP has a lower power (0). Rule 105/3 also implies that only > rules may authorise changes to the rules, and the backing document for XP is > not a rule. > > Rule 106/12 is the only other currently existing rule that allows rules > changes (rule 105/3 permits it to make such changes), and it requires such > changes to be made via a proposal. However, it states that all such proposals > must be 'published', which would cause them to not be 'secret'. > > Therefore there is no way for a player to become Referee without failing to > fulfil a SHALL requirement paragraph 8 of the backing document for XP. > > (I note in passing that the heading 'CONTEST RULES' in that backing document > is wrong, as such 'rules' were never proposed.) > > -- > ais523 > -- -----Iammars www.jmcteague.com
