Ben Caplan wrote:
>Ah, interesting. If R1868 finds it necessary to spell it out, then
>(exceptio probat regulam) "have" is equal to "come to have" elsewhere.
>Yes?
No. It's explicitly stated in R1868 because otherwise some people would
have got confused about it. It would still mean the same thi
On Saturday 7 June 2008 12:14:41 Ed Murphy wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>
> > There is, I think, a precedent somewhere to the effect that a state of
> > affairs can remain in place even when it can no longer come into being.
> > Something involving holding an office, or perhaps MwoP. So it would be
> >
Pavitra wrote:
> There is, I think, a precedent somewhere to the effect that a state of
> affairs can remain in place even when it can no longer come into being.
> Something involving holding an office, or perhaps MwoP. So it would be
> unreasonable to interpret "CANNOT have" as synonymous with "C
On Friday 6 June 2008 1:42:50 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I'd argue that the action of coming to have the same name or nickname
> as another rule-defined entity is what's impossible, so in this case
> Rule 9991 would fail to take effect when the proposal to create it
> passed (assuming they were create
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Revised proto: Replace item 1 with this text:
>
> 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: If the described
> state of affairs is an action, then attempts to perform it
> are unsuccessful; otherwise, a
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Other than insufficient power, are there any existing provisions that
> could lead to partially effective proposals?
>
A proposal can have one of its changes fail if for instance another
proposal amends a rule to prevent a repla
root wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If the described state of affairs is not an action, then these
>> terms apply instead to the change to the gamestate that would
>> otherwise occur and lead directly to that state of affairs.
>
> I
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the described state of affairs is not an action, then these
> terms apply instead to the change to the gamestate that would
> otherwise occur and lead directly to that state of affairs.
I'm not sure what this
Wooble wrote:
> On the other hand, MMI terms should probably only be used when the
> rule using them is explicitly defining an action, not when some action
> is implied. Rule 2153 suffers from the same sort of thing, although
> SHOULD is a lot different than CANNOT.
Proto:
Amend R2152 by append
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think you're missing the point. The exact restriction in the first
>> paragraph of R1586 is "Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same
>> name
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you're missing the point. The exact restriction in the first
> paragraph of R1586 is "Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same
> name or nickname." Note the use of upper-case CANNOT, which by R2152
> means that "
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Ben Caplan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> == CFJ 1985 ==
>>
>> The first paragraph of Rule 1586 has no effect.
>>
>>
>>
>> Caller's
> == CFJ 1985 ==
>
> The first paragraph of Rule 1586 has no effect.
>
>
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> How can attempts to *be* something be unsuccessful?
>
> ==
13 matches
Mail list logo
