I like it. It seems to be a direct logical consequence of the judgment
(although this might get you an IRRELEVANT judgment).
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 5:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
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).
