Taral wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> I agree that Sgeo did not meet any of the conditions, but the rules >> don't clearly define failure to meet any of the conditions as being a >> violation. > > I noticed this too: > > 6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the > described action violates the rule in question. > > 7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform > the described action, the full implications of failing to > perform it should be understood and carefully weighed. > > #6 explicitly says "violates the rule", and #7 makes no mention of > violating the rule. However, I interpreted this as a simple omission > -- a literal reading here results in a paragraph with no effect other > than on a meta-game level.
Which, as noted, is exactly how I intended #7 to operate. (We have other rules with even less significant effect.) If the courts decide otherwise, then so be it, but until then I'm not conceding the issue.
