On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, comex wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I really wondered about that, and erred for more freedom with MAY. >> I prob. SHOULD use SHOULD though. -G. > > Hmm. Both "SHOULD be interpreted" and "MAY be interpreted" take the > form of obligating someone (presumably the person reading the Rules, > or the judge) to interpret the Rules a certain way, which sort of > departs from recent game custom. I prefer "is interpreted", which > preserves the legal fiction that the Rules have one "true" > interpretation, and CFJs just help to find out what it is. (Or "may > be" in the sense of "might be", not "MAY be".)
I'm not sure I quite see the distinction. A SHOULD guides a judge to the one "true" interpretation, once set by precedent, it becomes a stronger SHOULD for later judges (e.g. becomes "more" true). Part of the point of the change is that contract-defined terms, low- powered definitions, and common out-of-Agora language all become part of the brew of ordinary usage. We SHOULD give general deference to the Agoran terms (e.g. Vote Ticket), but if (for example) a low-powered rule or contract redefines the word "the" to make a scam, we SHOULD be able to use the common term instead. -Goethe
