In most board games, the default assumption is
You cannot do something unless the rules say you can.
That might seem obvious, but in another universe the default assumption could be
You can do something unless the rules say you can't.
When I tried to explain this in an answer, it received negative attention. I intended to explain, but perhaps did not communicate well, that if the rules do not allow you can continue playing, you cannot continue playing.
This approach to answering "Can I [...]?" questions places the onus back on the asker to find a rule that allows it. The alternative would be to actually prove that no rule allows it. Proving that no relevant rule exists would be like attempting to prove that Russell's teapot does not exist, but on a smaller scale.
One of the commenters believed that shifting the burden of proof to the asker was equivalent to not addressing the question at all. That is not true. Answering the question and proving that your answer is correct are two different things. I did answer the question.
I understand that my answer stood next to another that quoted the official FAQ. However, FAQs are simply a collection of questions that are frequently asked. The FAQ didn't even mention why the answer was correct. I decided that "Because the FAQ says so." wasn't good enough, and wanted to post a more logical answer alongside it. "Because the FAQ says so." is simply a false pretense of proof.
Why did it receive such negative attention? Was the answer logically flawed? Could I improve the wording such that it may be better received next time I use this approach?
Note: If a rule did exist which stated that you cannot do something, that would clearly be preferable. I only want to discuss the case where there is no such rule.