Kerim Aydin wrote: > 3. What about a rule that says a player "CANNOT publish" certain > information? One way to look at such a clause is to decide that, > if technical means aren't used to block said publication, the > game is required to treat the message as if it did not exist and > had never been sent. Such an interpretation would violate R101v, > as it would imply that a type of message wasn't in fact sent or > sendable. However, a better way to look at such a rule is that > is simply doesn't function because reality overrides it. When a > message has been sent, it has been sent, and it is meaningless to > say that it CANNOT have been sent because, well, there it is, in > front of us. As such, a Rule simply CANNOT enforce a "CANNOT > publish". There's no violation of R101v, there's just a conflict > with reality and, in this case, reality wins.
I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with the precedent that the rules can be overridden by reality. Surely the rules are unlimited in scope, and can create legal fictions of nonexistence (CANNOT publish) just as easily as they can create legal fictions of existence (various assets).
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
