That’s a very good point. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Aug 4, 2017, at 7:53 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It could well be textually that "without objection" means without any > objection *ever* in the future because there's no time limit on that > and if anybody objects, there is objection. > > On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> >> >> The rules arent't entirely silent though, R1728 says that without objection >> actions can be done if all of the conditions on a list are true, and the list >> has no time limit for "without objection". >> >> Now, we might actually get lucky that, as pointed out by CuddleBeam a couple >> months ago, the process of Objecting is weakly defined. You could argue >> that by the common definition of parliamentary processes, you need to >> allow some kind of reasonable time for objections to be made, or you >> can't say that nobody objects. However, you'd have the argue that the lack >> of time limit in part 2 of the "all of the following are true" list is >> overridden by >> a custom-implied time limit in part 5(satisfaction). >> >> Main point though is you can't just wave you arms and say "precedent" :) >> >> On Fri, 4 Aug 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>> I do think that the rules are inconsistent, but I also believe that if they >>> are not inconsistent, they are silent on how to do things without objection. >>> ---- >>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 4, 2017, at 11:19 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> First line of R217: "when interpreting and applying the rules, the text >>>> of the >>>> rules takes precedence." Even if 20+ years of custom and precedents have >>>> us playing like X, if someone points out that due to a typo, the rules very >>>> clearly say "not X", then we discard the long custom. Custom only applies >>>> "When the text is silent, inconsistent or unclear." >>>> >>>> Now you *could* argue that the text is "inconsistent" in first talking >>>> about >>>> "Without objection" and later talking about "with objection", but you have >>>> to >>>> actually make that argument and explaining detail why we'd ignore the >>>> direct >>>> text. And if you based it on custom, you'd not only be arguing against the >>>> text of the rule, you'd be arguing against the competing and deeper >>>> "custom" - >>>> that finding and allowing loopholes due to typos to work has long been >>>> valid >>>> and fundamental part of game play! >>>> >>>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>>>> The general precedent of game custom and behavior around this method. >>>>> ---- >>>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >>>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 3, 2017, at 5:53 PM, Aris Merchant >>>>>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Which precedent, where? Also, Agoran precedent isn't really "a reason >>>>>> why things happen". It's more a way to decide among the competing rule >>>>>> interpretations, as people keep pointing out to me when the file motions >>>>>> to reconsider my CFJs. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> -Aris >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:30 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >>>>>> <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>>> I believe this clearly fails because of precedent. >>>>>> ---- >>>>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >>>>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 3, 2017, at 2:57 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry sorry sorry. But the rules do textually allow me to do this, >>>>>>> although I am sure the rules will be construed by the already pending >>>>>>> CFJ to obviously not allow me to do this because it would be silly. >>>>>>> But I can't not *try* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I intend in the next sentence to have every player win by apathy, >>>>>>> without objection. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Every player wins by apathy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> From V.J Rada >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > From V.J Rada
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
