The Ritual, however, isn't one! On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote: > > I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an > Officer > > report. An Officer report SHALL be published weekly", a robot may > interpret > > such a provision as imposing criminal liability on the report itself, but > > any English-speaking person would realise that the ADoP is liable for > such > > a breach. Just because any player can activate this provision, no > > difference applies. After all, it is still "exact", as non-player persons > > could not be held liable for breaching this rule as they can for some > rules. > > I think the report would clearly be at fault if it happened to be a > person. (We've had previous rulesets in which agreements could be > persons; it doesn't take much of a stretch from there to imagine a > ruleset in which a document could be a person.) > > -- > ais523 > > -- >From V.J. Rada
