Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9006212" data-attributes="member: 71699">Well, the claim would just be wrong. Rule zero is a regulatory rule acting upon that capacity.Yes, although the model doesn't guarantee that. It gives you a sense of where to look. Seek agreement up-front. Talk over the benefits you're aiming for. Write the rule at your table down. Create an institution.It depends what you mean by doubt. Until I wrote in this thread that Rule Zero is a regulatory rule assigning the given capacity exclusively to GM, no one else made that claim in those terms. (That doesn't mean that no one else intuited it - as they evidently did - but I haven't yet found it laid out in those precise terms.) Insistence on the connection would show most of all that the holder of that insistence hasn't yet thought through the construction of Rule Zero (or has reached other conclusions), but would have no bearing on the rule itself. Nor on its efficacy (or otherwise) in achieving whatever ends those who apply it have in mind.For instance, advocates could argue that it makes it more possible for them to exercise that capacity effectively at their tables. Compared with a preexisting state where it was not possible for them to exercise that capacity effectively at their tables. Thus they have a justification for their view. Pragmatically, they could hold a skeptical position with regard to any construction and prefer to speak of what counts in their experience.On the other hand, I could say that if their construction is incorrect then that could be indicative of other misapprehensions - especially those connected with their construction. I take it to be this kind of doubt that you are referring to, right? Here what I've tried to do is show how both sides might look at it. Justification for one side. Doubt for another.</blockquote>

Verification