On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > rule 2169/4 isn't powerful enough to make gamestate changes above power > 1.7 (but /is/ powerful enough to create a contest, as the definition of > a contest has a power of 1).
Um, no. R2125 states that regulated quantities are regulated quantities, regardless of the power that makes them regulated. Once regulated, a quantity can only be changed by methods contained in the rules. R2169 doesn't actually contain any such method, so there's no actual conflict. > "The valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements > that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules." So you've made your agreement. The agreement exists. I don't doubt that. But R2169 doesn't imply or specify a mechanism for making that agreement into a contest, so no mechanism exists in R2169. > A contest is a possible agreement that the parties could make. A rule > change is not. So luckily, this scam doesn't extend to arbitrary rules > changes. (If it did, then no doubt someone, probably root, would have > used it to win by now.) No, an agreement that has the *capability* to become a contest is a possible agreement that parties could make. Your agreement has the capability to become a contest. No problem. Now all you have to do is make it so. Go ahead. The method for doing so is described in R2136. -Goethe
