[H. CotC, I may be a little late in judging this but I intend to later by tomorrow after comments.]
The caller's argument hinges on the definition of "action", however there is another consideration. R2192 says in part "The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take..." and R2193 has been found to be the Monster. So what actions may R2193 *specifically* take? R2141 states that rules can *generally* govern the game, but can a *specific* rule (r2193) *actually* do something that is not currently contained in its text? Particularly, R105 states that an instrument can only "generally" make a rules change "where permitted by other rules", and the general "govern the game" clause of R2141 is not necessarily permission. I cannot find a place where R2193 is specifically permitted by other rules, or itself, to make rules changes. And I find based on longstanding custom and the good of the game where the rules are silent (issues such as "regulation" aren't a direct issue as that limits persons, not rules, but the principle can provide guidance) that the permission must be specific. Therefore, the rules change in question did not take place. FALSE. [It's also possible to base this on an existence argument: What is a Rule? In the most Platonic basic sense, a Rule is its text. If a Rule's text doesn't say it may do something, doing that something is not part of its fundamental nature and it can't do it. Further, we are under no obligation to treat a Rule like a person and assume that "a rule can do whatever is unregulated" etc. For a rule to have fundamental "meaning" it must be so tied and limited to its text] -Goethe
