Remember that the same rule is also what says that if the Rules define
an action, then you can't do it outside of how the Rules say that you
can [0]. I don't think we want to repeal that.
[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.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 9:11 PM, Rebecca wrote:
But it's a truism that the rules only regulate what they regulate, we don't
need a special rule to say what is already implicit.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:49 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
On 6/16/2019 4:28 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
>
First, why the heck would you repeal that as a solution? It applies pretty
heavily to various CANs and CANNOTs even if SHALLs are broken - v. bad idea
I think.
I think there are precedents that this applies to SHALL, but I figured
rather than digging I'd do a proto-CFJ that showed a logical consequence of
the judgement, in case we wanted to wholly re-evaluate, or to see if that
logical consequence was a reason to file for reconsideration.
