Isn't this usually the time where someone says "It's a permissive ruleset. If the rules do not permit an action that action is not allowed."

Can you cite a ruleset where it is OK to do anything except what is forbidden by the rules?

I know that ziggy, I'm just used to 40k boards where everyone uses the term Permissive Ruleset like they just invented the idea yesterday.

Isn't this usually the time where someone says "It's a permissive ruleset. If the rules do not permit an action that action is not allowed."

What ruleset is not permissive?

Can you cite a ruleset where it is OK to do anything except what is forbidden by the rules?

RPGs, possibly. And the law's the obvious one.

Next time stick his saboteur card up his nose.

We've specifically had to ban that sort of thing after the store championship. One particularly enraged new player had just encountered Ten Numb for the first time and had to be physically restrained from eating the 'Autoblaster' card.

I love all this "its naughty but maybe he isnt a cheater just making a mistake" stuff.

It's one thing to say "I think I can look at them" Its quite another to insist that you can..

Some people are very manipulative and overbearing. I heard on the radio that gut reaction is correct MOST of the time (theres been redearch on it!). If you felt like he was being a ******, chance are he WAS.

"Sorry to bother, but can you just show me where in the rules you can look at face-down cards..." would have been my response. My second response would have been to think twice before playing him again.

A favorite expression of some people around here is 'never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.' I think this scenario amply demonstrates the fallibility of blindly adhering to such aphorisms.

while in this example that might be true, statistically speaking you probably encounter more stupid people than intentionally malicious ones (of course these are not mutually exclusive).