The point is that e is required to do it by announcement if possible (this is only possible for expired zombies). I don't know how to word that. I was under the impression that we had a cannon of construction that people were not in general required to try to amend the rules. Was I wrong about that?
-Aris On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Tue, 1 May 2018, Alex Smith wrote: >> b) If a dictatorship scam exists in the ruleset, the Registrar is >> required to use it. > > Ooh yah I thought that looked pretty open-ended and hard for an > officer to obey but didn't connect the dots that far. yikes. > > I was thinking the best way to fix this particular issue might be > would be to clarify what it means when you require an Officer to > perform a dependent action. Maybe like: > > If an Officer is REQUIRED to initiate a dependent action, e > SHALL, at least once, between 4-10 days after the initiation > (unless the action has been performed in the mean time), > publicly list the supporters/objectors, and if e CAN perform > the task at that time, e MUST perform it in the same message. > > (then make each specific requirement an initiation requirement > not an "attempt to perform" requirement). > > >
