Oops. Yes, I did indeed. Sorry about that, and thanks for catching the
error.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:27 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Telling someone that they aren’t allowed to do something does limit
> there ability to do it
>
> Did you mean that it _doesn't_ limit their ability to do it?
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/15/19 12:25 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >>
>
