The reasoning by R. Lee as described by G. below seems sound to me. I plan to adopt it as the reasons for judgement on 3737, unless someone gives me persuasive arguments to the contrary.
> On Jun 17, 2019, at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > > I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules don't punish breathing, they > punish breach-of-contract. The fact that breach-of-contract comes from > breathing doesn't make the rules "reach into the contract" to regulate > breathing. > > In particular this phrase in R1742 is interesting: > 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. > > So we can have a contradiction (the contract prohibits breathing, while the > rules don't regulate it) but this doesn't "impair" punishment for violating > R1742. That clause applies directly "if you sign a contract for something > unregulated, it doesn't matter that the Rules say you can't be punished > for the act directly, you can still be punished for violating this clause - > it's your fault for signing up." > >> On 6/17/2019 11:30 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: >> Sorry, by the contract not prohibiting breathing, I meant that the contract >> can say it prohibits breathing all it wants, but the Rules will not >> _enforce_ criminal liability for violations of that, thus the Rules wouldn't >> proscribe breathing. >> Jason Cobb >>> On 6/17/19 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: >>> Both can be easily proven factually incorrect. >>> >>> Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow, >>> enable, or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract does >>> not limit its performance. >>> >>> The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a >>> dictionary to prove such things. >>> >>> To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood, which >>> might in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking". >>> >>>> On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: >>>> You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime). >>>> Either >>>> >>>> - Breathing is a regulated action, or >>>> >>>> - The contract does not prohibit breathing. >>>> >>>> Jason Cobb >>>> >>>>> On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: >>>>> Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict. >>>>> >>>>> I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions. >>>>> >>>>> The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an >>>>> unregulated action. >>>>> >>>>> By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct conclusion >>>>> that the contract proscribes an unregulated action without breaking rule >>>>> 2152. >>>>> >>>>> There really is no way out of this, is there? >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: >>>>>>> Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that, >>>>>>> assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN >>>>>>> perform an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform. >>>>>> >>>>>> From the dictionary I get: >>>>>> >>>>>> Proscribe - >>>>>> forbid, especially by law. >>>>>> synonyms: forbid, prohibit, ban, bar, disallow, rule out, embargo, veto, >>>>>> make illegal, interdict, outlaw, taboo >>>>>> "gambling was proscribed" >>>>>> >>>>>> Since "make illegal" and "prohibit" are capitalized equivalents for SHALL >>>>>> NOT in R2152, that's the interpretation that makes the most sense to me. >>>>> >>>
