Looking back at it, you are probably right in your interpretation, and I
think that the judge is likely to agree with you. I didn't withdraw the
CFJ (and I couldn't now, anyway) because I think there could be other
interpretations, and it can't hurt to get it down in writing.
Jason Cobb
On 6/15/19 12:47 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
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
