On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Benjamin Caplan <
celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
I agree with your arguments; I was just trying to remove the self-reference
in the definition. I remove the above quoted proposal from the proposal
pool.
--
C-walker, who clearly intends this message to be public.
