On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:25:05PM +0100, Zefram wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453?
>
> I guess that qualifies as a Legislative Order, so at least it's something
> that categorically does have defined persistence. I'm not happy about
> the arbitrary scope of Orders (except Timing Orders), and I'd consider
> it bad form to use an Order to impose obligations that extend beyond
> some prompt action. The one you cite is discharged by a short sequence
> of actions that will be executed in a matter of days, so there's not
> much of an issue there. If it were of the form "Every week until X
> the Scorekeepor shall ..." then I'd consider that a bad use of Orders,
> which ought to be in a rule instead. A completely open-ended obligation
> ("Every week the Scorekeepor shall ...") appears to make an unsatisfiable
> Order, which might be invalid.Per rule 1793, all orders must direct an entity to perform exactly one action, or refrain from one or more actions. Ordering someone to do something every week would seem to be more than one action - indeed, an infinite number.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
