On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, comex wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> >> Amend Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?) by replacing the paragraph beginning: >> 3. SHOULD NOT, >> with: >> 3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Performing the >> described action without having and providing a very, >> very good reason doing so is not considered to be in >> the best interests of the game. > > As I'm hyper-sensitized to scams right now, arguably this makes > violating a SHOULD break R101 "Please treat Agora right good forever."
"Please" is an exhortation, I don't think it's possible to break one of those. Arguably, "please treat" is the same as "players SHOULD treat" so that in itself doesn't add a penalty in R101. > It also arguably makes inappropriate judgements (a SHOULD NOT) and > maybe other actions illegal because Rule 217 states that the text of > the rules is to be augmented by consideration of the best interests of > the game. I think "consideration of" is reasonable grounds to strive for; e.g. if there's a should, purposefully and knowingly not considering it isn't appropriate. -Goethe
