Fair enough. Though we've used that before with no big crises.
If someone feels like proposing a change, the alternative should be that crimes by zombies transfer punishment to their masters (which we've also done before). On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > Exactly, nothing should automatically prohibit illegal actions. > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> At least that was the direct and specific intent when I wrote it - I > >> intended > >> illegal actions on behalf of zombies to fail because they weren't > >> "allowed", > >> therefore blocking the CAN in R2466. Intent doesn't always mean much, and > >> I can see that the link to R2466 isn't abundantly clear, but that "allows" > >> in > >> R2466 should definitely be considered in this context. > > > > > > Such an automatic platonic failure means that recordkeepers need to do > > complicated assessments of the illegality of actions, and I thought avoiding > > that was a major reason for making illegal actions SHALL NOT instead of > > CANNOT in the first place. > > > > Greetings, > > Ørjan. > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
