On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote: > I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an Officer > report. An Officer report SHALL be published weekly", a robot may interpret > such a provision as imposing criminal liability on the report itself, but > any English-speaking person would realise that the ADoP is liable for such > a breach. Just because any player can activate this provision, no > difference applies. After all, it is still "exact", as non-player persons > could not be held liable for breaching this rule as they can for some rules.
I think the report would clearly be at fault if it happened to be a person. (We've had previous rulesets in which agreements could be persons; it doesn't take much of a stretch from there to imagine a ruleset in which a document could be a person.) -- ais523
