ais523 wrote: > Also, it is a very bad idea to put SHOULDs into the rules which cause > things other than players or people to carefully consider their actions.
Interpretation is performed by people. > (I remember when I submitted the RBoA as a proposal with the wrong II, > thus causing it to break a SHOULD; what happened to the resulting court > case? I can't remember. Maybe I should try it again, with the correct > text...) Maybe it was retracted; the only cases mentioning the RBoA in the statement appear to be 2028, 2061, and 2221, none of which sound like what you're describing. Also, the RBoA is a partnership and thus a person.
