G. wrote:
8672* Murphy 3.0 Inclusivity
AGAINST. Thought about this for a good bit. I'm not convinced that
"reasonable" shouldn't stay wholly contextual/common law - we're accepting
a lot of complex multipart moves that I'd call "reasonable for a
well-informed officer but not "reasonable to players in general" so I'm
wondering if this truly codifying the existing precedents or if this is
making things more stringent. Either way, maybe need more discussion on
this one.
"_____ need only be reasonably clear to the officer(s) required to track
it" makes sense, but how to fill in that blank? (Probably throw in a
"generally", and leave room for common law to deal with edge cases.)
Current uses of "reasonable" or "reasonably" (** indicates that the rule
explicitly defines a standard for that context):
* R1698 (ossification), reasonable combination of actions
* R869 (registration), reasonably clear/unambiguous intent
* R869 (compelling non-players), reasonably implied consent
* R2139 (registration history), reasonably available information
* R2518 (indeterminate values), reasonably available information and
determination
* R2505 (random choices), reasonably close to what's required
** R217 (rule precedence), low-power rules reasonably clarifying
definitions in high-power rules
* R217 (right to resolve controversy), reasonable expectation of
obtaining resolution
* R1681 (FLR change history), reasonable accuracy
* R1006 (holding office), reasonably implied consent
* R2209 (ratification without objection), if a correct document could
be produced with reasonable effort then trying to ratify an
incorrect one requires more info to be legal
* R2201 (self-ratification), statement to be ratified can't be
reasonably ascertained from ruleset + message
* R2531 (defendant's rights), reasonably possible standard of care
in avoiding an action/inaction normally carrying a fine
* R991 (judge rotation), reasonably equal opportunities to judge
* R591 (judging DISMISS), insufficient info to judge with reasonable
effort
* R2492 (recusal), recusal after 4+ days requires apology and/or
reasonable explanation before being assigned to another case
* R2519 (consent), reasonably clear intent
* R2634 (Buoyancy Target), reasonable judgement in calculating
* R2545 (auctions), reasonably inferred intent regarding method
* R2581 (Tapecutter et al), reasonably quick support/objection
Current uses of "available" not already covered:
* R1742 (contracts), information publicly or generally available
* R2451 (Executive Orders), "The available Cabinet Orders are:"
Current uses of "clear" not already covered:
* R478 (Fora), clear intent to send a public message / act by
announcement
* R1789 (Cantus Cygneus), clearly labeled as being one
* R106 (adopting proposals), clearly marked comments
* R217 (rule interpretation), unclear rules text
* R105 (rule changes), clear specification of method
* R107 (Agoran decisions), clear specification of info
* R683 (voting), clear identification of information and intent
* R208 (resolving Agoran decisions), clear identification of
what's being resolved
** R2127 (conditional votes), clearly specified/expressed
* R2202 (ratification without objection), clear description to
avoid Endorsing Forgery
* R2201 (self-ratification), clear citation of CoE
* R2450 (pledges), clear message
* R2545 (auctions), clear intent of punishable requirements
* R2654 (The Device), two clauses copied from elsewhere
* R2566 (free tournaments), clearly malformed regulations etc.
