I suspect "Oatbreaking is per se prohibited by law" is trivially false, because I don't think that breaking oats is inherently forbidden by law.
I might be wrong though, it's worth looking into our rights for oats. I eat a lot for breakfast so I'm quite concerned. On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 4:15 AM Aris Merchant < [email protected]> wrote: > To be clear, the precise requirement for a penalty is that the action > in question must be "prohibited by law" (R2531). Rule 2152 makes it > clear that marking something ILLEGAL means that "Performing the > described action violates the rule in question", but no rule states > that such a marking is a necessary condition for an action to be a > violation. Furthermore, Rule 2450 implies quite strongly that > Oathbreaking is per se ILLEGAL. > > I CFJ, barring CuddleBeam, "Committing a Crime is per se prohibited by > law". I CFJ, barring CuddleBeam, "Oatbreaking is per se prohibited by > law". > > -Aris > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 6:37 PM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, [email protected] wrote: > > > After checking the rules: violating pledges is defined as a crime, but > > > I can't see any actual requirement to avoid committing crime. The > > > relationship between crimes and illegal actions does not seem to be > > > well-defined. The most plausible readings of the rules I can see (based > > > on Trigon's recent attempt at producing a ruleset) are: > > > > I just looked through, with the exception of pledges, it looks like all > > Crimes are directly associated with an explicit SHALL, SHALL NOT, or > > ILLEGAL (e.g. "players SHALL NOT X, doing so is the class N crime of...") > > > > Pledges used to have an ILLEGAL but that was removed on June 15. > > > > Maybe pledges have no force at all, so don't set up any requirements. > > > > > > >
