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).
>
>
>
>
