On 5/9/26 10:45, Gregory Hayes via agora-business wrote: > Rule 2125 provides three tests for an action's regulation, any one of which > is sufficient for the action to qualify. These tests are: > > 1. The rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance. > > The rules themselves cause players to score numbers in some place, but in no > place do they currently purport to regulate scoring in this way. > > 2. The rules describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed > or fail. > > Once again, the rules describe no such circumstances for causing a player to > score a number. > > 3. The action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some > player is required to be recordkeepor.
Scoring a number very much ought to be a regulated action; describing the circumstances under which an action is deemed to occur should definitely be included under the first test (as it "allows" and "permits" the action, as defined by the rules, to be performed). If it isn't, the definition is broken, and it needs to be fixed. I don't think we've had any notable R2125 cases in the recent past, so I don't immediately have any particular authority to cite for this. (I can look in more depth later.) At the very least, this is extremely strong game custom, and it complies with the natural reading of the rule: "limit, allow, enable, or permit" seems to me about everything the rules to affect the performance of an action. Alternatively: you seem to be reading the first test as requiring regulation of physical performance by a person. Rule 2125's text draws no such distinction between a natural person doing something and a deemed performance. In fact, doing so would break the regulation of "by announcement" actions (under the first test, at least; the second tests might save it), since Rule 478 uses similar phrasing (the person "performs that action") in describing when a "by announcement" action is deemed to occur. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor
