Judgment of CFJ 3517: The caller's arguments are predicated on the mistaken assumption that the rules permit everything they do not proscribe. There are two main problems with this. First, this is clearly against the intent of the rule in multiple major respects. It is incoherent and almost meaningless to define "regulated" in such a way that it describes all actions. After all, it would be simpler just to say "all actions". It also makes the order that "[t]he Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions" ineffective.
The second reason is that this interpretation doesn't fit is that it isn't in accord with common sense. Does Agora permit the wind to blow or storms to form? Of course not! Agora simply doesn't care one way or the other whether these things happen. There must be some middle ground, some place for actions to be considered irrelevant to gameplay. Another way to think about this is that the verb "permit" needs to have some meaning. Even if I say "I permit the sun to rise", I'm not sure that it would be permitting that to happen. I find that Rule 2125 implies that Agora can meaningfully permit or proscribe actions that either: a) would not be permitted otherwise and become permitted; and or b) fall within Agora's sphere of control or influence Because the sun rising, the wind blowing, and me walking down the street are unregulated actions, FALSE.
