Sorry, I got the default reversed, you're right. Your language works
because of this:
Restricted Actions CAN only be performed as described by the
Rules.
and the "be performed as described" means you have to describe how its
done for it to be allowable (i.e. the rules have to describe that it
is to be performed "by announcement" or "without Objection" or whatever
method is to be used). So a CAN on its own can't be done any way -
it can be done no way.
Anyway, while your langauge works and may convenient to add, that's
why it has nothing to do with the recent breakage that was due to the
lack of a "by announcement", not the question of whether MAY => CAN.
Or were you just doing this for its own sake, nothing to do with the
breakage?
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Nope the text for CAN is this: "
>
> CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's
> all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument
> that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure.
>
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > No. No no no no no. No.
> >
> > CAN isn't successful either, UNLESS THERE'S A BY ANNOUNCEMENT.
> >
> > The problem ISN'T SHALL and CAN. It's the missing "by announcement".
> > That's what the CFJs say.
> >
> > You've just said "if it says MAY, attempts to do it *are successful*.
> > Even if done in Discussion. Even if done in private. Even if done
> > in your head. In a high-level definition.
> >
> > On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> Title: Mother, May I?
> >> AI: 3
> >> Amend rule 2152 by replacing "MAY: Performing the described action
> >> does not violate the rules." with "MAY: Performing the described
> >> action does not violate the rules and attempts to perform the
> >> described action are successful"
> >>
> >> I submit and pend the above paying 1 shiny.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J Rada
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada
>
