Charles Walker wrote:
> proposal:
> {
>
> SHOULD
>
> AI 3, II 2
>
> In Rule 2152, "Mother, May I?", replace point 7 with:
>
> {{
>
> 7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform the described
> action, the full implications of failing to perform it SHALL be understood
> and carefully weighed.
>
> }}
>
> }
>
> I intend to make the above distributable with 3 support.
>
Bad idea.
It has been pointed out before that certain players view SHALL and SHALL
NOT as carrying defined costs, like paying Notes to submit proposals,
and that therefore breaking rules is a valid part of the game.
Thus, the argument goes, aspects of the game (such as the inquiry
judicial system) that have no formal game effect are often obeyed more
consistently than theoretically more Powerful rules.
SHOULD is just such an aspect, which is the reasoning behind by recently
passed proposal that "a person SHOULD NOT violate a rule". Giving it
in-game teeth by means of SHALL->crim->punishment makes it a target for
scams, politics, and corruption.
It may be worth creating a third state between SHALL and SHOULD that
works as you suggest, but not at the expense of the SHOULD that is
currently in the ruleset.
Better to keep SHOULD pure.
