On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [It's also possible to base this on an existence argument: What is a Rule? > In the most Platonic basic sense, a Rule is its text. If a Rule's text > doesn't say it may do something, doing that something is not part of > its fundamental nature and it can't do it. Further, we are under no > obligation to treat a Rule like a person and assume that "a rule can do > whatever is unregulated" etc. For a rule to have fundamental "meaning" > it must be so tied and limited to its text]
I proto-intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support, because it is not Agoran custom to "sandbox" rules like this. Also, eir two arguments are in conflict: if one Rule specifically permits someone to cause another Rule (which itself is silent) to effect Rule Changes, does it work? The quoted paragraph would imply no, but the Rule-based argument yes.
