On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: >> For an even more stark example of this (which may not be directly >> applicable), consider a power-3 rule saying "Players MAY A. Players MAY >> B.", and a power-1 rule saying "Players MAY NOT B." In this situation, I >> believe that B is illegal (although punishments for it would be for >> breaking a power-1 rule); Bing does not break the power-3 rule, but does >> break the power-1 rule, and the power-3 rule does not make it legal. > > Proto-Proposal: Fix MMI > (AI = 3, please) > > Amend Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?) by replacing this text: > > 5. MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the > rule in question. > > with this text: > > 5. MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the > rules.
Not so good. This means that if a power-1 rule says MAY X, and a power-2 rule says MAY NOT X, then the power-3 MMI would make the power-1 MAY take precedence over the power-2 MAY NOT. This would even be true if the power-1 rule says "MAY generally X" and the power-2 rule says "MAY NOT X in these specific circumstances". And a power-3 MAY NOT would depend on its precedence (rule number) with respect to MMI. Messy. I don't think the situation that ais523 mentions is in fact broken; the NOT GUILTY via EXCUSED means that in the above situation, a player should choose to break the power-1 rule because breaking the power-3 rule would be a "more serious" breach, so precedence is enforced and the player would be NOT GUILTY. -Goethe
