We do interestingly have a clause that says "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.". I suppose under my interpretation, anyone who so interprets the rules in any circumstance will be criminally liable, whereas under the contrasting interpretation, only the Rules themselves are liable.
This clause, I suspect, should be changed in some way. SHALL NOT seems like the wrong term. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:12 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > -- >From V.J. Rada
