Goethe wrote:
> One major issue is that there is little precedent on the term "generally"
> that seems to pepper the rules nowadays.
I thought there was a fair (if diffuse) amount of precedent to the
extent that "generally X" means "X, except when something with the
authority to impose a specific
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> I proto-intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support, because it is
> not Agoran custom to "sandbox" rules like this. Also, eir two
> arguments are in conflict: if one Rule specifically permits someone to
> cause another Rule (which itself is silent) to effect
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [It's also possible to base this on an existence argument: What is a Rule?
> In the most Platonic basic sense, a Rule is its text. If a Rule's text
> doesn't say it may do something, doing that something is not part of
> its
[H. CotC, I may be a little late in judging this but I intend to later
by tomorrow after comments.]
The caller's argument hinges on the definition of "action", however
there is another consideration.
R2192 says in part "The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of the Monster to
take any action tha
4 matches
Mail list logo
