On 6/16/2019 1:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
My judgement is as follows:
When a player "SHALL NOT" perform an action, e "violates the rule in
question" [Rule 2152 "Mother, May I?"]. Any parties to this theoretical
contract would still be able to breate but to do so would violate the rule.
Whereas this does not constitute a limitation, I judge this CFJ FALSE.
Proto-CFJ: A player CANNOT be punished for violating No Faking.
Arguments
By CFJ 3737, forbidding something that a player can do "naturally" via a
SHALL NOT does not regulate that action as per the first paragraph of R2125,
so lying is unregulated.
However, the second paragraph of R2125 says: "The Rules SHALL NOT be
interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions" and "proscribe" means
"to forbid". And I think "forbidding" something, by common definition, is
to make it a rules violation (i.e. a SHALL NOT).