Ah, true. So: Proto: Whenever you CAN perform an action, without it being stated the method via the which you can perform such a CAN, you CAN (and only can) perform it by announcement.
MAY, given the paradigm that it doesn't give ability like CAN, is pretty much meaningless imo. You already MAY do anything unregulated. If it's not unregulated, it's regulated, and the only way to get the ability to push formal knobs is with a CAN, which you MAY do anyway (excluding the ability being restricted to a group of persons you aren't a part of). If it's SHALL and MAY, without providing a method for doing it, if it's an unregulated action that's OK imo, but if it's regulated or something only accessible by formal means (like changing some platonic variable), and there is no method provided to do it (like a CAN), then it's just faulty rule-writing imo. Unless the definitions for SHALL and MAY change - it's just linguistics (in a "coding" kind of sense) in the end anyway. On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > >about why exactly I shouldn't just rule that CAN (or SHALL) implies "by > announcement" whenever it makes sense. > > > > I think it might be good to have a rule which states the metaphysics of > action on Agora lol (this relates to the telepathy problem too actually.) > > Proto: Whenever you CAN perform an action, without it being stated the > method via the which you can perform such a CAN, you CAN (and must) perform > it by announcement. > > Um, why the must, it turns everything you CAN do into a requirement... > > And should the default work for SHALL and MAY. > > And if so, does one overrule the other? > > E.g. if one rule says you CAN, and another rule says you CANNOT, the > issue is solved with rule precedence. > > But if one rule says SHALL, and another rule says CANNOT, does the > explicit CANNOT always overrule the implicit SHALL -> CAN, or is the > rule precedence method also used? > > The original SHALL versus CAN distinction is that they were completely > orthogonal to each other, now we're merging so should look at conflicts > and collisions. > > >
