Aris wrote:
Amend Rule 2125, "Regulated Actions", by replacing:
An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
permit its performance; (2) the Rules 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.
with:
An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit or enable its
performance; (2) the Rules describe the circumstances under
which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would,
as part of its effect, modify a rule-defined state of affairs.
How about merging (1) and (2) into "the Rules describe the circumstances
under which the action is or is not effective and/or legal"?
I don't think that's a correct merger of 1 and 2. I'm basically
removing the "legal" and making it only apply to effectiveness. The
question, really, is whether limiting and enabling is a different
thing from describing circumstances for success and failure. The
current text appears to assume that it is, but I could see it going
either way.
Thinking about this:
* "Limiting and enabling" might include legality as well as
effectiveness. The desire to exclude possible-but-illegal actions
from "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed ..." makes sense.
* A rule attempting to enable an action, but neglecting to specify a
method, might inadvertently limit it instead. This suggests a
confusing and likely invalid recursive interpretation of Rule 2125,
which it makes sense to avoid explicitly.
What about merging 1 and 2 into "other Rules declare whether performing
it is possible, possibly depending on circumstances"? This would be
relevant even if said declaration is ineffective for some reason.
