On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> I agree that Sgeo did not meet any of the conditions, but the rules
> don't clearly define failure to meet any of the conditions as being a
> violation.
I noticed this too:
6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the
described action violates the rule in question.
7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform
the described action, the full implications of failing to
perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.
#6 explicitly says "violates the rule", and #7 makes no mention of
violating the rule. However, I interpreted this as a simple omission
-- a literal reading here results in a paragraph with no effect other
than on a meta-game level.
--
Taral <tar...@gmail.com>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
