On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Warrigal wrote: > If I say to a friend, "You should buy XYZ", it doesn't mean that he's > obligated or even requested to buy XYZ; it's just a recommendation. A > SHOULD in the rules should therefore also be a recommendation, and > like breaking a SHALL is a reason for criminal punishment that must be > applied, breaking a SHOULD can be a reason for informal "punishment" > that people can apply at their discretion, such as failing to be > re-elected.
Well, it's a little more than that. The rule defines SHOULD as having a particular standard for consideration. The point is more that we (as a group, and when judging) should generally assume that players going against a SHOULD do give it full consideration, in the same way we generally assume that players aren't outright lying all the time. So unless shows utter reckless disregard for a should, any court should pretty much throw the case out (or we shouldn't support intents to prosecute SHOULD's...that's the first line of defense. Should we add the meta to the rules: "Judges SHOULD generally assume that players who don't do something they SHOULD have given it full consideration". -Goethe
