Here is a different approach to rules. Answers to this question will help a lot with other parts of the rules. I'd like to explore whether the ruleset should:
Which way do you prefer to play -- everything's legal unless stated as illegal by the rules, or everything's illegal unless the rules say it is allowed? It is also valid to say that you want a mixture, as long as we specify in the rule which kind it is.
For the record, I prefer a mix, with some rules which grant permissions which are assumed to be illegal outside the grant (who can do particular items) and some rules which place specific restrictions (leaders may only post instructions that follow the will of the people if known) without being any more restrictive than that.
Hopefully this discussion will reveal some specific actions we can take on getting the rules done, minimizing the amount of rules needed, and making as much clear as possible so there are less chances of differing interpretations.
- Allow everything except those things which are forbidden by the rules
- Disallow everything except those things for which permission is given by the rules.
Which way do you prefer to play -- everything's legal unless stated as illegal by the rules, or everything's illegal unless the rules say it is allowed? It is also valid to say that you want a mixture, as long as we specify in the rule which kind it is.
For the record, I prefer a mix, with some rules which grant permissions which are assumed to be illegal outside the grant (who can do particular items) and some rules which place specific restrictions (leaders may only post instructions that follow the will of the people if known) without being any more restrictive than that.
Hopefully this discussion will reveal some specific actions we can take on getting the rules done, minimizing the amount of rules needed, and making as much clear as possible so there are less chances of differing interpretations.