On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > Well, the power grant doesn't seem to work, but the scam doesn't > entirely rely on it. The privilege grant alone should be enough for > this scam to have worked; per R101, "a person's defined privileges are > assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding agreement to > the contrary." R101 takes precedence over Rules 105 and 2140, and so > therefore does the privilege.
Two points on this one: 1. I don't think an unnamed possible privilege in a foreign nomic counts as the *rules defining* a person as possessing a *specific* privilege as required to be a R101 privilege. The specificity of R101 as requiring a rules definition probably does not allow the definition power to be delegated, and even if it does so allow, R2148 is not specific enough about the privilege to do it. 2. Didn't we decide via CFJ that the whole privilege clause prohibits punishment but doesn't grant ability? In other words, if you have a privilege, the Rules SHALL NOT restrict you from doing it, but don't enable that you CAN do it. Note that R101 doesn't really define how a "privilege" functions, just that if you have a privilege, rules don't restrict it. For example, as quoted before "I have the privilege to fly!" "I'm not saying you don't. Go right ahead." -Goethe
