On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 12:14 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > 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 Maybe it was retracted; the only cases mentioning the RBoA in the 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.
Ah, IIRC it was a crim case that didn't get the needed support. The reason I submitted the RBoA as a proposal was precisely because it was a person, and therefore capable of being crimmed against; and I wanted to cause it to violate a SHOULD that applied to proposals, as a method of pointing out the absurdity in what the rule means. (The RBoA shouldn't have allowed itself to be submitted with the wrong AI, goes the argument; that's what the rule says, not what it means. The only way it was innocent is if it somehow carefully considered the action (and it didn't have a chance to), or if the proposal and the contract were separate entities; however, if it isn't innocent, it's almost certainly unaware.) -- ais523
