Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Since it seems
>> unreasonable to add an obligation retroactively due to changing
>> circumstances, it seems equally unreasonable to remove one.
>>
>> I judge case 2403 to be TRUE.
>
> I'm not sure about this one at all. For example, let's say I'm required
> to award a player something that only applies to players, but e deregisters
> first (before the time limit even). Does that mean I'm still obligated to
> do so?
>
> -G.
I personally think no. The difference between the two is that in the
2403, if the obligation exists, then it is possible to fulfill by virtue
of "CAN and SHALL", regardless of external circumstances (specifically,
whether or not Wooble is presently a contestmaster), whereas in your
example the action is illegal regardless of the obligation's existence.
However, it is important to note that in the case of an obligation due
to contract, the impossibility of performance does not remove the
obligation. This may very well be the case. However, it may also be the
case that the precedence of rules cause the obligation not to apply.
I CFJ the following statement:
{
If a rule requires a player to perform an action without making it
possible for em to do so, and there is a rule forbidding em from doing
so, e can take no action that is not in violation of a rule.
}
