[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Given that an action is (1) required and (2) not explicitly prohibited, >when would you consider it appropriate for that action to not be implicitly >allowed?
I think you've jumped to a different situation here, one that doesn't occur in our rules. You're suggesting that a SHALL without a SHALL NOT should cancel a default SHALL NOT. We don't have a default SHALL NOT: we permit the unprohibited. In the case at hand, we have a default CANNOT (rule-defined entities cannot be changed except where validated by the rules) and an explicit SHALL without a SHALL NOT. I can see why you'd want to read in a CAN there, as a shorthand, but it's quite a lot of extra complexity for very little gain in conciseness. Pretty much everywhere that there's a SHALL in "judicial reform" with an accompanying CAN, the actions are different for the two. For example, in judge assignment the CotC SHALL assign as soon as possible, but CAN assign even after the asap deadline has passed. In the other cases the actions are even more distinct than that. By reading a CAN from a SHALL, you're violating orthogonality, as I said. There's another failure of orthogonality in what you propose, though. By making the implicit CAN depend on the absence of a SHALL NOT, you're involving the contrary action as well. It is a strength of MMI that SHALL and SHALL NOT don't influence each other. >And this new judicial terminology is, what, e.g. "assigns a judgement >to a judicial question when obliged to and within the time limit >specified by the rules", instead of "submits a judgement during eir >Deliberation Period"? Yes, that's the fundamental terminology. We could define a shorter term if it were a commonly-used concept, but we don't need an abbreviation used in only place. >Currently, The Standing Court explicitly states that non-standing players >are disqualified from being Trial Judges. The proto deals with supine >players in one way and sitting players in another, Ah, yes. My concept of "unqualified" is stronger than the current "ineligible", and I don't disqualify sitting players. It's CAN versus MAY again. -zefram
