I suppose that makes sense. Though that does make me wonder if contracts
can specify a crime other than a Class 2 Crime, since this clause
doesn't say otherwise.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules don't punish breathing, they
punish breach-of-contract. The fact that breach-of-contract comes from
breathing doesn't make the rules "reach into the contract" to regulate
breathing.
In particular this phrase in R1742 is interesting:
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.
So we can have a contradiction (the contract prohibits breathing,
while the
rules don't regulate it) but this doesn't "impair" punishment for
violating
R1742. That clause applies directly "if you sign a contract for
something
unregulated, it doesn't matter that the Rules say you can't be punished
for the act directly, you can still be punished for violating this
clause -
it's your fault for signing up."
On 6/17/2019 11:30 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Sorry, by the contract not prohibiting breathing, I meant that the
contract can say it prohibits breathing all it wants, but the Rules
will not _enforce_ criminal liability for violations of that, thus
the Rules wouldn't proscribe breathing.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Both can be easily proven factually incorrect.
Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not
allow, enable, or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the
contract does not limit its performance.
The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a
dictionary to prove such things.
To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood,
which might in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking".
On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a
crime). Either
- Breathing is a regulated action, or
- The contract does not prohibit breathing.
Jason Cobb
On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict.
I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated
actions.
The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an
unregulated action.
By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct
conclusion that the contract proscribes an unregulated action
without breaking rule 2152.
There really is no way out of this, is there?
On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate
that, assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e
still CAN perform an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT
perform.
From the dictionary I get:
Proscribe -
forbid, especially by law.
synonyms: forbid, prohibit, ban, bar, disallow, rule out,
embargo, veto,
make illegal, interdict, outlaw, taboo
"gambling was proscribed"
Since "make illegal" and "prohibit" are capitalized equivalents
for SHALL
NOT in R2152, that's the interpretation that makes the most sense
to me.
