Sgeo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>> I retract the previous version of this proposal.
>>
>> Proposal: Decriminalize restricted actions
>> (AI = 3, please)
>>
>> Amend Rule 2125 (Regulation Regulations) by replacing this text:
>>
>> d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while
>> certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action MAY NOT be
>> performed except as allowed by the rules.
>>
>> with this text:
>>
>> d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while
>> certain conditions are satisfied. Except as allowed by the
>> rules, performing such an action is the Class-N Crime of
>> Restricted Behavior, where N is the maximum power of the
>> rules explicitly allowing it (rounded up as needed to
>> become a valid Class of Crime).
>>
>
> .....So if we MAY do it, we may not do it?
E's just changing it so that the penalty is the same power as the rule
allowing it, rather than using R2125's power.
