Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice...
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 7:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent on
regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too hasty?
I create and pend the below proposal
Name: Regulated what?
AI: 3
Text: Repeal rule 2125 "Regulated Actions"
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:47 AM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
This judgment is contradictory. By Rule 2125 [0], the Rules cannot be
interpreted to proscribe (prohibit) unregulated actions. Since you judge
that breathing would NOT be regulated, then the rules do not prohibit
breathing, yet you state otherwise in your judgment:
> Any parties to this theoretical contract would still be able to
breate but to do so would violate the rule.
At most one of "breathing is prohibited" and "breathing is unregulated"
can be true, yet you assert that (in this hypothetical) both are true.
[0]: Excerpt from Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions")
{
A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the
Rules,and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules
for performing the given action. The Rules SHALL NOT be
interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 4:45 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.
On 6/15/19 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This below case is CFJ 3737, I assign it to Trigon:
=============================== CFJ 3737
===============================
If the contract in evidence were to come into force, breathing
would be a regulated action.
==========================================================================
Caller: Jason Cobb
Judge: Trigon
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Jason Cobb: 15 Jun 2019 03:34:49
Assigned to Trigon: 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
I argue that, if the contract were to come into force, then the Rules
would "limit" the performance of breathing, namely that parties to the
contract would be prohibited from breathing. This limiting would apply
due to the excerpt from Rule 1742, which requires that parties to the
contract act in accordance with it. In this case, requiring the parties
to act in accordance with the contract has the same effect as
prohibiting breathing. Prohibition of an action is a form of limiting
its performance. This would cause breathing to fall under the definition
of being regulated under Rule 2125. I thus argue that this CFJ should be
judged TRUE.
Caller's Evidence:
Contract:
{
All parties to this contract SHALL NOT breathe.
}
(I explicitly do NOT consent to this contract.)
Excerpt from Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions"):
An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under
which
the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as
part
of its effect, modify information for which some player is
required to be a recordkeepor.
Excerpt from Rule 1742 ("Contracts"):
Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
between the contract and the rules.
==========================================================================
