Goethe wrote: > The confusion of case law finally reached the point that it was stated > very explicitly in Rule 101/2 (Power=3) introduced by Maud, August 2005: > > Agora May I? > > Any player is permitted to perform an action which is not > regulated. An action is regulated if: > > (a) the action is prohibited; > > (b) the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied, > then some player is permitted to perform the action; > > (...) other tests of regulation > > But note it still didn't say that a player could not perform a regulated > action, just that e could perform one that was not regulated. The > implication of the reverse remained a (strong) exceptio probat regulam > implication.
For a while, there was also a rule explicitly stating that Nomic Properties (attributes existing solely because they were defined by the rules) could not be changed except as explicitly allowed by the rules. This was eventually replaced with a simple blanket statement that changes to such properties were regulated, and later repealed entirely.
