ehird wrote: > Therefore, as the power-3 rule 101/7(ii) permits winning the game by > announcement, and no rule with power at least 3 prohibits it, it is > possible to win the game by announcement. As I made such an > announcement, I have therefore won the game.
Nice analysis that winning isn't regulated. A suprise, if your analysis of R2125(a-d) holds up (I particularly liked the bit about Champion != winning, though the second sentence of R1922(d), quite accidentally, seems to imply that "winning" is tracked by the Herald in some secondary manner associated with Champion, so they're not entirely de-linked for R2125(c) ). But a deeper and more subtle counterargument on your above point: R101(ii) talks about "having the right" to perform unregulated actions, but that doesn't imply ability. In other words, R101 says that you MAY perform an unregulated action, but doesn't say that you CAN. An analogy: R101 doesn't forbid you from flapping your arms and flying away, so you have the right to do that. But it doesn't mean you can. This isn't tested---(here's a counterargument to my counterargument) it's not clear whether R101 "rights" imply MAY, CAN, or both, and the fact that we can't "abridge, reduce, limit, or remove" rights implies that, insomuch as the rules define and control "game physics" through CAN and CANNOT, R101 means that rules can't limit said "physics" so as to interfere or limit a "defined right"; therefore requiring us to infer a CAN in cases where inferring a CANNOT would conflict with a right. Either way, this is highly worthy of being discussed, mooted, judged, addressed! I heartily endorse your product and/or service. -Goethe
