I think you’re misunderstanding what the word “limit” means (or at least
what it’s intended to mean, which may be different from what we’ll
interpret it to mean). Telling someone that they aren’t allowed to do
something does limit there ability to do it, it only limits the
permissibility of doing so. Otherwise, the rest of the rule, the bit about
the rules not forbidding unregulated actions, would be meaningless.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 8:34 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [This may be a bit silly, but I couldn't find any precedent for it, and
> I think it is important to settle this. Also, I know this might be
> obsolete soon with the proposed changes to this wording. Again, if I'm
> missing something, please tell me and I'll retract this.]
>
> CFJ: "If the contract in evidence were to come into force, breathing
> would be a regulated action."
>
> Evidence
>
> ========
>
> Contract:
>
> {
>
> All parties to this contract SHALL NOT breathe.
>
> }
>
> (I explicitly do NOT consent to this contract.)
>
>
> Excerpt from Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions"):
>
> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
> permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which
> the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part
> of its effect, modify information for which some player is
> required to be a recordkeepor.
>
>
> Excerpt from Rule 1742 ("Contracts"):
>
> Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
> accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
> by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
> between the contract and the rules.
>
>
> Arguments
>
> =========
>
> I argue that, if the contract were to come into force, then the Rules
> would "limit" the performance of breathing, namely that parties to the
> contract would be prohibited from breathing. This limiting would apply
> due to the excerpt from Rule 1742, which requires that parties to the
> contract act in accordance with it. In this case, requiring the parties
> to act in accordance with the contract has the same effect as
> prohibiting breathing. Prohibition of an action is a form of limiting
> its performance. This would cause breathing to fall under the definition
> of being regulated under Rule 2125. I thus argue that this CFJ should be
> judged TRUE.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>
