Summary: I can't find any particular reason it's phrased that way.
Before voting on any decisions to change R2125's wording "The rules
SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.", I
wanted to understand why it's written that way. (Versus finding some
other phrasing that doesn't invoke SHALL NOT, which was, I think
already defined to mean "violates the rules" at that time.)
So I tracked down the first appearance of those words to Proposal 7614
[0]. Here's what I found, in case others are curious.
The proposal makes a lot of changes. Based on a comment in the
proposal, I think the sentence was added to replace "right" number (i)
that was in R101 at the time:
This rule takes precedence over any rule which would allow or
mandate restrictions of the rights contained herein.
i. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the
ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or
regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of
changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules
explicitly or implicitly permit it.
I searched just a bit but wasn't able to find much discussion around
the time of the proposal. So I guess it is just the wording G. decided
to use.
[0]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2014-January/010589.html
