Kerim Aydin wrote: >But what's the default when the rules just say "X shall not do foo"?
It varies, and this issue arises in real-world law also. Usually, if foo is something that has significance only due to the rules then it is taken to be impossible. If it is something that is inherently possible, however, then it is merely forbidden. We don't necessarily stick to this division strictly. Ultimately the phrase is ambiguous, subject to interpretation by CFJ. Steve's thesis "Breaking the Rules" discusses this issue. E uses a classification of retractable vs non-retractable rule violations. -zefram
