On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, omd wrote: > > I mean, if omd states "I hereby start the process of Review" > > when the rules don't govern such a thing, isn't that just a > > classic ISIDTID fallacy? > > In fact, I didn't say such a thing explicitly. The review wasn't > started because I said it did, but because I posted a proposed rule > change to a public forum players are generally expected to read, with > text implying that it would be imposed by fiat soon. Whether or not > people had the opportunity to go through a review process is a matter > of external reality that exists independently of the rules; in lieu of > an explicit definition of an exact type of process required, the > reference merely reflects that reality.
You posted the text of a proposed rule change and indicated it was an intended rule change. But whether you actually started a legal "review process", or just said you did, is a matter of debate. In every other case, when the Rules say "A player must do X to then do Y", and there's no explicit defined way to do X, we say "too bad, no Y". That's the clear custom underlying ISID, and the legalistic style of Agora in general. Why is it different in the case of the most regulated and exact process in the game? -G.
