On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 2:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > In R2125/10 (power=3) there is the following: > > A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the > > Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the > > Rules for performing the given action. > > Note that there's no "rules to the contrary notwithstanding" in here. > Does this mean that power 3+ rules with numbers lower than 2125 would > overrule this, and allow CANs without methods to work? Are there any CFJs > on the subject - I can't remember any offhand.
Even if CANs without methods aren't prohibited by other rules, it seems to me like they can't work without some more definition. Currently, if the rules have a bare CAN, then that merely asserts that there exists some method of performing the action, but fails to specify what that method is, so the statement is too ambiguous to have any effect. By analogy, imagine if we enacted a rule stating, "When this rule is enacted, a player is deregistered." That rule merely asserts that there is some player who is deregistered, but fails to specify who that player is, so the statement is too ambiguous to have any effect. ...or we could take the rules even more strictly than I'm used to us doing, and find that that rule does, in fact, deregister some player, and it will be up to the judges to figure out exactly which player is deregistered. That would be awfully interesting. —Warrigal
