On 5/22/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A. That's why (i) is a privilege and not a right. Read the R101 preamble.
The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or
privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement
or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or
remove a person's defined rights. This rule takes precedence over any
rule which would allow restrictions of a person's rights or
privileges.
This preamble gives extra powers to rights (binding agreements &
interpretations of Agoran law cannot abridge...) but, since there is
neither an ambiguous interpretation of Agoran law nor a binding
agreement related, it's irrelevant. In fact, the preamble by itself
does not actually say my rights exist except in a very indirect way
(interpreting the rest of the rule so that it did not give me rights
would be a violation of the preamble).
Privileges on the other hand are "assumed to exist", in addition to
the implicit fact that a rule saying I have the privilege to do
something is saying I can do it. How can you possibly interpret this
other than an elongated version of "they exist"?
And the rule takes precedence over any rule which would allow
restrictions of a person's rights OR PRIVILEGES. So, as I said, no
other rule matters, only R101.
> B. Actually, no ones stopping you from making a Ruleset like that and
> publishing it. Go for it. It's your privilege and (for the moment) your
> right.
No, what I willed is that Agora's R101 be amended in the manner I
specified. I had the privilege to amend it and I did. What part of
the preamble contradicts this?
