On 7/7/22 19:58, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > As it has no mentions of the rules, I didn't think it was necessary to > include an interpretation where a tabled action must be rules-defined as an > action able to be performed with one of those methods. But looking at Rule > 2125 (Regulated Actions), I do see the relevance. > > > 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. > > > You can make the connection that an action "is performed with a method" > means that action "CAN be performed by that method as described by the > rules", but that seems like a bit of a jump given the wording is > significantly different as I argued, "is performed" vs "CAN be performed". > > > As the rules don't explicitly say that tabled actions have to be > rules-defined to be intended, we shouldn't just assume that's what the > rules mean. We should consider it, but there's no evidence that suggests it > to be true. The lack of an explicit requirement to be rules-defined more > implies that there is no requirement to be rules-defined than there being > one.
The fact that the usages of those methods must be rules-defined is inherent in the fact that, in order for the rules to recognize the uses of those methods, the actions must necessarily be regulated. It is IMPOSSIBLE to take an action with N support if the rules do not permit you to do so. You might have another method to do so if it's unregulated, but that won't be "with N support". -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
