On 1/21/20 11:06 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Actually you might want to re-call this with different phrasing. You can > ask if a game-object (not sure if that's the right word) coming into > existence is a regulated action, but your phrasing suggests that anything > coming into existence would be regulated, including things that have nothing > to do with the rules. So is this FALSE on a technicality or possibly > DISMISS (not enough data, need to know what sort of thing is coming into > existence to opine). >
I remember the H. D. Margaux finding in CFJ 3737 (the one on breathing becoming a regulated action because of a contract) that an action could be regulated for some people but not others: > 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. I never quite understood how that was based in the text of the rules (or any of the Rule 217 factors), since Rule 2125 seems to say that an action is either regulated or unregulated. I think the same applies here; either the action can be regulated for some entities but not others (as precedent says), in which case you're right and it is underspecified, or it's binary, and it is fully specified. But I'm ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ as to who is correct. -- Jason Cobb
