Alexis wrote: > I'm not sold on this, or on the precedent. > > R2125 is clear that actions can only be performed by the methods > *explicitly* specified. It seems to me that it closes the door to methods > of performing actions being specified by implication, even by necessary > implication. I think it requires a conclusion that zombies are broken (cf. > the text of the rules taking precedence).
I would have said that auction-as-a-method was *explicitly* specified, just not *clearly* specified. IOW, although its meaning is probably not obvious on a cursory inspection - and I don't think it was the intention of the original author, either - I don't see any other plausible interpretation of the text in R2545. "An Auction is a way" (syn. method) "for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency"; it just *is*, there's no subjectivity or subtle implication to it. -twg
