On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 23:02 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >> Since it seems
> >> unreasonable to add an obligation retroactively due to changing
> >> circumstances, it seems equally unreasonable to remove one.
> >>
> >> I judge case 2403 to be TRUE.
> >
> > I'm not sure about this one at all. For example, let's say I'm required
> > to award a player something that only applies to players, but e deregisters
> > first (before the time limit even). Does that mean I'm still obligated to
> > do so?
> >
> > -G.
>
> I personally think no. The difference between the two is that in the
> 2403, if the obligation exists, then it is possible to fulfill by virtue
> of "CAN and SHALL", regardless of external circumstances (specifically,
> whether or not Wooble is presently a contestmaster), whereas in your
> example the action is illegal regardless of the obligation's existence.
>
> However, it is important to note that in the case of an obligation due
> to contract, the impossibility of performance does not remove the
> obligation. This may very well be the case. However, it may also be the
> case that the precedence of rules cause the obligation not to apply.
>
> I CFJ the following statement:
> {
> If a rule requires a player to perform an action without making it
> possible for em to do so, and there is a rule forbidding em from doing
> so, e can take no action that is not in violation of a rule.
> }
It's probably worth pointing out that this is likely what EXCUSED (now
absorbed into NOT GUILTY) was about. In my understanding the rules, if
you SHALL but CANNOT do something, you've broken the rules but can't
legally be punished for it.
--
ais523
