On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 2:35 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Aris wrote: > > > Title: Clearer Regulated Actions > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-author(s): > > > > > > [The current regulated actions rule has a few problems with it. > > First, there is the perennial problem where Rule 2125(1) appears to > > make all actions regulated, since the rules arguably permit > > everything they do not forbid. Although precedent (CFJ 3519) has > > ruled that this is not the case, several players are not convinced > > by the precedent. In any case, there's no particular reason a > > MAY should make an action regulated. > > > > Rule 2125(3) has a different problem. Precedent (CFJ 3740) has ruled > > that the phrase "required to be a recordkeepor" only applies if the > > rules explicitly use the word "recordkeepor", which is confusing > > to say the least. Furthermore, the reasoning for that precedent > > appears to be that in some cases players are required to track natural > > concepts that should not be regulated state, e.g. the list of > > players interested in judging. If the goal is to limit it to rule > > defined state, it should say that, and this proposal would make it > > do so.] > > > > 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. -Aris
