So it's regulated. And, as you say in your original post, many of us can't
consider the pledge broken *and have that consideration have legal effect*.
But the Referee CAN, because there's a mechanism for em to do so (Carding
as a form of recognition). Maybe I'm missing the issue?
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Yes I agree with that, but due to that, it still describes a success case.
> With this example I hope its more clear:
>
> Imagine we didn't have R7866 as it is now., and I post:
>
> "I pledge will give Bob 1 shiny after he gives me an Estate."
>
> Then he gives me an Estate.
> And 3 weeks pass, and I still haven't paid Bob. Could've it have been
> (legally) considered that I have broken my pledge? No, because the timeframe
> where I could do it is still active. It' still
> "after he gives me an Estate".
>
> But! With the new rule - you now can! After those three weeks, by virtue of
> R7866, " A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete
> it in a timely manner after it becomes
> possible to do so", I've broken my pledge. That new sentence allows the
> success of an otherwise unsuccessful action, by describing a condition where
> such an action (such a consideration) would
> succeed.
>
> Therefore, I believe that it is regulated.
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but
> super cool though).
> > Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal
> consideration" is all it
> > takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in the "at the moment"
> argument? All
> > cool?)
>
> Using some legal common sense, the phrase "may be considered broken", if we
> use
> it as MAY, means the rules gives legal permission for people to consider the
> pledge broken.
>
> How do we do so? Well, we MAY "recognize" that a pledge, and therefore a
> rule, has
> been broken. ("recognize: acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality
> of.")
>
> Which means that one then MAY apply a card, which is, in fact, "a recognition
> of a specific violation of the rules". (So this makes it LEGAL to apply a
> Card
> for a broken pledge; other rules limit mechanisms that make it POSSIBLE to the
> Referee).
>
>
>
>
>
>
