> In general, defining one method for doing something excludes "unregulated" > methods from working, but doesn't exclude other regulated methods in the > rules from working. > > For example, saying (under certain conditions) that the Herald CAN award > Champion by announcement (Rule 2449) doesn't prevent the Herald from > awarding Champion using the generic w/2 Agoran Consent method for patent > titles (R649). > > The wording I used was "A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 > barrels." which could be read as "any time a player CAN win the game > (under any win method) it will additionally cost em 100 barrels." Saying > "A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 100 barrels" doesn't stop > other regulated methods in the rules from working independently (but it > does put "win the game" into the "regulated" category which blocks wholly > unregulated methods from succeeding).
I don't understand how the first phrasing could give R2579 any more force compared to the second phrasing. In both cases, the sole reason R2579 comes into effect is because payment of a set of assets has been associated with the action of winning the game. R2579 clearly says what *must* be done to perform a fee-based action. It is not written as if it's designed to provide an additional method. "To perform a fee-based action, an entity ... must ... indicate intent to pay that fee" and later "Otherwise ... the action is not performed". If another rule claims that it's possible to perform such an action a different way, then the rules are in conflict. Responding to Jason re R2125: yes, R2125 implies the possibility of multiple methods, but ultimately, it defers to the body of law (i.e. other rules): "that body of law prevents the action from being performed except as described within it". The "including by limiting the methods" part is in addition to that. - Falsifian
