But rule 101 doesn't prevent players doing anything. Rule 101 is entirely concerned with allowing players to do things (as its title suggests). I still think you're confusing "regulated" and "secured". And securedness has a power threshold for this reason. Again, if you want to persist with this argument, please explain what effect regulating an action has other than on rule 101, with a citation from the ruleset. If you think it ought to have more of an affect than this, you always have the option of proposing a change in the rules to fix any bugs you percieve... -- ais523
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Kerim Aydin Sent: Thu 08/05/2008 11:36 To: Agora Discussion Subject: RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [CotC] CFJ 1932 assigned to ais523 On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > No, it doesn't have to take precedence over 2125. All 2125 implies is that the > action of creating a contest is "regulated". Searching the ruleset for words > starting "regulat" finds that the only relevant affect that this has is to > prevent rule 101(ii) from allowing any player to create a contest at will. So > rule 2125 prevents a player creating a contest under rule 101 (this is very > useful, without it the game would just be a mess), but doesn't prevent a > player creating a contest under rule 2169. Yes it does. That's just nonsense. It's like saying "R101 prevents players from changing regulated things at will. But R478 allows players to perform actions by announcement, therefore players can change any regulated things by announcement". Substitute R2169 for R478 and "by equity judgement" with "by announcement" and you have your argument, which is equivalent nonsense. -Goethe
<<winmail.dat>>
