I like it. It seems to be a direct logical consequence of the judgment
(although this might get you an IRRELEVANT judgment).
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 5:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/16/2019 1:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
My judgement is as follows:
When a player "SHALL NOT" perform an
This judgment is contradictory. By Rule 2125 [0], the Rules cannot be
interpreted to proscribe (prohibit) unregulated actions. Since you judge
that breathing would NOT be regulated, then the rules do not prohibit
breathing, yet you state otherwise in your judgment:
> Any parties to this
On 6/16/2019 1:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
My judgement is as follows:
When a player "SHALL NOT" perform an action, e "violates the rule in
question" [Rule 2152 "Mother, May I?"]. Any parties to this theoretical
contract would still be able to breate but to do so would violate the rule.
This is interesting.
R1885, power 2, says "the Registrar CAN put that zombie ... up for
auction.". R2549 is power 1, so I think 1885 wins. It doesn't exactly say
"initiate" an auction, but in the context of the rules I think it must mean
that.
I can think of two ways to interpret the situation.
Anyone dumb enough to consent to a contract forbidding breathing deserves
any blots that may be imposed, in my view. No such protections are needed,
and if somehow somebody scams someone into such a contract, the referee can
use eir discretion to not punish. I stand by my original stance/
On Mon,
But it's a truism that the rules only regulate what they regulate, we don't
need a special rule to say what is already implicit.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:49 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 6/16/2019 4:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of
Remember that the same rule is also what says that if the Rules define
an action, then you can't do it outside of how the Rules say that you
can [0]. I don't think we want to repeal that.
[0]: Excerpt from Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions")
{
A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as
Maybe a model like this would work:
- _Each_ requirement-creating entity (including both the Rules at large,
each contract, regulations, etc.) has its own set of "regulated
actions", and cannot be interpreted to say anything about actions
outside of this set. This would keep the stipulation
On 6/16/2019 6:10 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Anyone dumb enough to consent to a contract forbidding breathing deserves
any blots that may be imposed, in my view. No such protections are needed,
and if somehow somebody scams someone into such a contract, the referee can
use eir discretion to not
The regulated action would be breaching a contract you consented to, which
is unlawful under the rules. It wouldn't matter what was in the contract. I
think any reasonable human judge would rule as such.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 6/16/2019 6:10 PM, Rebecca
Ah, sorry. In case it's still helpful:
green ribbon - for holding Registrar or Treasuror (take your pick) for
30 days without failing any duties
blue ribbon - for judging CFJ 3726 (also 3727) on June 4
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 at 18:26, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Friendly Ribbon request from the Tailor -
On 6/16/2019 4:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent
> on regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too
hasty?
>
> I create and pend the below proposal
>
First, why the heck would you repeal that as a solution?
Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice...
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 7:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent on
regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too hasty?
I create and pend the below
V.J. Rada
> Text: Repeal rule 2125 "Regulated Actions"
Jason Cobb wrote:
> Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice...
I think we'd always like to have some sort of protection against regulating
breathing and the like. Grabbed some old language from the Rights era,
maybe
On 6/16/2019 5:43 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 6/16/19 8:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> V.J. Rada
>> > Text: Repeal rule 2125 "Regulated Actions"
>>
>> Jason Cobb wrote:
>> > Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice...
>>
>> I think we'd always like to have some sort of
I'm interested, but I'd like a way to leave the contract, at least
after The Ritual is gone. I realize the contract doesn't really do
much after that point, but it bugs me anyway that I'll continue to be
bound by it.
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 at 12:13, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> I consent to the
I think that might fall victim to the same thing I tried with CFJ 3737.
When we have contracts, any player can get the Rules to prohibit
anything (at least for certain players), thus removing the protections.
So, when I create a contract that prohibits breathing, breathing would
be indirectly
Well that screws up my Oathbreaking CFJ *grumble grumble*.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 12:43 AM, omd wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:31 PM omd wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:24 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
I intend with 2 support to group-file a motion to reconsider. This
ruling suggests that a
I meant to ask about that. Is there a reason all of these terms use the
"-or" suffix even when normal English would use "-er"?
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 1:04 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 00:58 -0400, omd wrote:
CFJ: In Rule 2125, "required to be a recordkeepor"
Gratuitous Argument
The Pledge rule states that "N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
otherwise". But it doesn't say what N is when the pledge _does_ explicitly
state otherwise. Therefore, N is indeterminate and there is no explicit
Class for this crime, so it defaults to a base value of 2.
Forwarding to DIS - you sent this to me privately, presumably by mistake.
In answer to the question, that seems plausible to me.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, June 16, 2019 2:02 AM, Rance Bedwell wrote:
>
>
> R2549 says "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the
Oh gosh, I'd completely forgot about that. If anyone else forgets the context,
Rule 105 said (and still says) that "A repealed rule... MUST be reenacted with
the same ID number" - i.e. all repealed rules are guilty of not being reenacted.
If nobody's up for rephrasing it, I think we should at
22 matches
Mail list logo
