Or we could just stick with the precedent that conditionals need to be reasonable (some combination of being comprehensible to the general public and being easily resolvable by the responsible officer).
-Aris On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We've defined (by precedent) that the standards for clarity for R478 > include simple conditionals. R478 is power-3, and lower-powered > definitions are only "guidance". I find it hard to believe that the > simplest conditionals (e.g. "If I did not just succeed with method A, > I do it with method B") wouldn't continue to meet R478 standards of > clarity. > > Ergo, this needs to be power-3 and include a "rules to the contrary > notwithstanding", or it doesn't work. Better yet, put it in R478 so > it's all self-contained. > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> Proposal: Conditional Ban (AI=1, pend=AP) >> {{{ >> Enact a new rule entitled 'Unconditionality' reading "Except where the >> rules, implicitly or explicitly, provide a mechanism to do so, actions >> CANNOT be performed conditionally." >> }}} >> > >
