Reading this, I feel like it asserts that (at least) one of these two
things is correct, but I'm not sure which:
- If two different people claim to do the same thing, they are different
"actions" because different people do them. Person A triggering Side
Game Suspension is a different action than Person B triggering Side Game
Suspension.
- The regulated actions clause can regulate different sets of actions
for different people.
I feel like either would make it so that doing something where the Rules
say nothing about me doing it would be unregulated for me, even if the
Rules says something about a different person performing the action (as
long as no player is required to be a recordkeepor of something the
action would change).
One such action is the assigning of judges to CFJs. Judge is
specifically an untracked CFJ switch, thus no player is "required to be
the recordkeepor" (assuming CFJ 3740 comes out TRUE or otherwise affirms
this statement). Assume that I create a CFJ, let it be CJF X.
Rule 991 ("Calls for Judgment") reads:
When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so
in a timely fashion. The players eligible to be assigned as judge
are all active players except the initiator and the person barred
(if any). The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge
that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections.
This Rule does not impose requirements on me changing the judge of CFJ
X. It instead regulates assigning the CFJ for the Arbitor (who is not
me) and for "any player eligible to judge that CFJ", which is a
description that I do not fulfill.
Specifically, here is my reasoning:
- If doing the same thing is a different "action" for each different
performer, then the Rules only explicitly regulate the the Arbitor
flipping the judge switch and "any player eligible to judge [CFJ X]"
flipping the judge siwtch. Me flipping the judge switch of CFJ X would
be a completely different action, and thus not regulated by the Rules,
and thus the Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted to proscribe me flipping
that switch.
- If the regulated actions clause regulates different sets of actions of
different people, then there is no wording that explicitly causes it to
be regulated for me. Just like there is no wording that specifically
causes (otherwise unregulated) actions that would violate contracts to
which I am not party to be regulated for me. Therefore, the flipping of
the judge switch of CFJ X would NOT be regulated for me, and the Rules
SHALL NOT be interpreted to proscribe it.
I really hope that my reasoning is flawed in some way because,
otherwise, this is a disturbing precedent. Please tell me if you can see
something.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 9:53 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
I issue the below judgement and claim a reward of 5 coins for issuing it.
***
Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be entered
in this CFJ.[1] I was subsequently assigned to judge it.
Judge Trigon believed that no LEGAL judgement could be assigned to this case for reasons
explained in an email chain reproduced in a footnote here.[2] Judge Trigon's recusal was
premised on eir belief that an action does not necessarily become regulated when a
contract states that it "SHALL NOT" be performed.
After much consideration, I disagree with that conclusion, and instead agree with contrary arguements offered by R. Lee
and others. In particular, an action is regulated if its "performance" is "limited" by Rule. A
"limitation" on "performance" does not necessarily mean a limitation on the *possibility* of
performance of the action. Instead, it can also refer to a limitation on the LEGALLY of the performance of the action.
In this CFJ, a hypothetical contract would forbids parties from breathing, and
the rules would prohibit a party from violating that contract. The rules would
therefore forbid a party to the contract from breathing (but not anyone else).
The contract at issue, and the rules that create contracts generally, have
limited the LEGAL performance of breathing when done by a party to the
hypothetical contract. As a result, the act of breathing would be regulated
when taken by a party to the contract.
That said, the contract cannot affect the LEGALITY or POSSIBILITY of an action
taken by a non-party. As a result, the contract would not limit breathing by
non-parties. Breathing by other people generally would not be limited in any
way, only breathing by parties to the contract. Therefore it is FALSE that
breathing generally would be regulated; only breathing by certain people.
FALSE
-----
[1] Judge Trigon recused emself in this message.
On Jun 17, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Reubejn Staley<reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
I recuse myself from this case. I really don't think there's any LEGAL way to
resolve this.
[2] The email chain in question is reproduced here:
On Jun 17, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley<reuben.sta...@gmail.com> 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.
--
Trigon
