On Thu, 8 May 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> In any case, there appears to be precedent beyond just game custom
> that regulated actions are impossible to perform unless otherwise
> authorized by the rules, but unfortunately the CotC database stops 2
> cases later than the one I found cited (CFJ 1237), but CFJ 1295a does
> say that 1237 established this quite clearly.
I apologize for the random "appeal to ancient custom" earlier. Here's
some history. Many of those precedents came from a time when R101 read:
Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Rules is
permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing
the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or
implicitly permit it.
but what constituted "regulated" was not explicitly defined in the
Rules and in fact was a result of a body of case law. In fact, a
couple older versions I perused made almost no reference to whether
things were "regulated" or not. Still, much common use of the term was
made, assuming it followed its common definition. An example of common
usage can be found throughout the (unofficial) section headings of the
FLR, for example:
Making Proposals
This rather large Category includes Rules regulating the
submission and distribution of Proposals, the Proposal Pool,
and the Currency of Papyri.
The confusion of case law finally reached the point that it was stated
very explicitly in Rule 101/2 (Power=3) introduced by Maud, August 2005:
Agora May I?
Any player is permitted to perform an action which is not
regulated. An action is regulated if:
(a) the action is prohibited;
(b) the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied,
then some player is permitted to perform the action;
(...) other tests of regulation
But note it still didn't say that a player could not perform a regulated
action, just that e could perform one that was not regulated. The
implication of the reverse remained a (strong) exceptio probat regulam
implication.
The current version separates "Regulations Regulations" from R101,
thereby making the connection a little more indirect, but I believe the
"rights formulation" still has the same legal effect as the previous
versions; by granting the right (or in previous versions, permission) to
perform unregulated actions, it denies/limits a players right/permissions
to perform regulated actions.
That phrasing comes from the r101 of Nomic from Sube). I always liked that
phrasing, it implies that whatever *is* regulated is *not* permitted, while
putting the emphasis on permission rather than prohibition. I believe the
"rights" version still does the same without the need for inelegant
clarification.
-Goethe
