On Mon, 4 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 14:53 -0700, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > It seems clear to me that the right outcome here is for you to keep
> > your shinies and not get a stamp, and given that the action of
> > spending shinies was clearly conditioned on creating a stamp, I think
> > that’s what actually happened, too. Anyone feel strongly enough to
> > call a CFJ?
>
> I think, the way my message was worded, it was an attempt to perform an
> impossible action (and thus entirely failed). So I don't think a CFJ is
> needed here either. If anyone does, they can call it if they really
> want to, but it's probably best to just proceed with what we think the
> gamestate is; if we're wrong it'll self-ratify in a week anyway.
The issue is that, the way the rule is written, it's unclear whether it
was IMPOSSIBLE or merely ILLEGAL.
Is there a "SHALL implies CAN by announcement" in the ruleset currently?
If not, is it in precedent, and does it mean the implied SHALL NOT is
a CANNOT, or merely a SHALL NOT? And does the timing of the report
publication (second time in a week) matter?
Rule text:
Floating Value is a natural switch. When e publishes eir Weekly Report,
the
Secretary SHALL flip the Floating Value to Agora's shiny balance.
