On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:21 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We do interestingly have a clause that says "The Rules SHALL NOT be > interpreted > so as to proscribe unregulated actions.". I suppose under my > interpretation, anyone who so interprets the rules in any circumstance will > be criminally liable, whereas under the contrasting interpretation, only > the Rules themselves are liable. > > This clause, I suspect, should be changed in some way. SHALL NOT seems like > the wrong term.
I searched my mail and found CFJ 3403: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg26252.html It's quite an ironic clause, at least if you read it literally.
