Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that,
assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN
perform an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform.
On 6/16/19 3:47 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
This judgment is contradictory. By Rule 2125 [0], the Rules
CoE: there is no astronomor or clork post te sidegame suspension act
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:18 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
> =Metareport=
> You can find an up-to-date version of this report at
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php
>
> Date of last report: 2019-05-19
> Date of
Both can be easily proven factually incorrect.
Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow,
enable, or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract
does not limit its performance.
The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a
Sorry, by the contract not prohibiting breathing, I meant that the
contract can say it prohibits breathing all it wants, but the Rules will
not _enforce_ criminal liability for violations of that, thus the Rules
wouldn't proscribe breathing.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley
I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules don't punish breathing, they
punish breach-of-contract. The fact that breach-of-contract comes from
breathing doesn't make the rules "reach into the contract" to regulate
breathing.
In particular this phrase in R1742 is interesting:
Parties to
I suppose that makes sense. Though that does make me wonder if contracts
can specify a crime other than a Class 2 Crime, since this clause
doesn't say otherwise.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules don't punish breathing, they
punish
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 05:04, Jason Cobb wrote:
> (This means that Corona was not a player from ~10 June to ~13 June
> because ratification.)
I don't think the "fugitive" vs. "player" distinction in the Referee
weekly report is self-ratifying. It would be self-ratifying in a
Registrar's report
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 09:17, Edward Murphy wrote:
>
> Falsifian wrote:
>
> > I publish the below report, which was originally published by Trigon
> > on June 6. I earn 5 Coins for publishing it.
> >
> > (The report fulfilled Trigon's duty to publish a weekly report, so it
> > is a
It would appear so, my apologies.
Jason Cobb
On 6/18/19 1:47 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 05:04, Jason Cobb wrote:
(This means that Corona was not a player from ~10 June to ~13 June
because ratification.)
I don't think the "fugitive" vs. "player" distinction in the Referee
Not to the public forum
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 8:09 AM, Rebecca wrote:
CoE: there is no astronomor or clork post te sidegame suspension act
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:18 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
=Metareport=
You can find an up-to-date version of this report at
Hi omd,
When a Motion to Reconsider is filed, I drop the old arguments
entirely from the case log, so the old judgement isn't mistaken for
precedent (there's no objective way of knowing whether motion-filers
are objecting to minor portions, or the whole thing, and keeping both
gets quite
Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict.
I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an
unregulated action.
By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct conclusion
that the contract proscribes
Whoops, modify both of those statements to only apply in the hypothetical.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime).
Either
- Breathing is a regulated action, or
- The contract does not prohibit breathing.
Jason
You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime).
Either
- Breathing is a regulated action, or
- The contract does not prohibit breathing.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict.
I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to
On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that,
assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN perform
an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform.
From the dictionary I get:
Proscribe -
forbid,
Falsifian wrote:
I publish the below report, which was originally published by Trigon
on June 6. I earn 5 Coins for publishing it.
(The report fulfilled Trigon's duty to publish a weekly report, so it
is a duty-fulfilling report.)
If this works at all, then it only works if you claim the
We just discussed this last week! Yes, the rules CAN proscribe unregulated
actions and do in fact. it's just illegal to formally interpret them that
way, whether or not that interpretation is legally correct.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:27 PM omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:47 PM Jason
17 matches
Mail list logo
