I disagree with your disagreement—it’s good to be able to trust our officers 
when we need to, but I see no reason to do so unnecessary. There are, of 
course, situations where it’s good to use the CAN but SHALL NOT, such as 
pending proposals, because it provides an escape hatch for broken stuff.  But 
for a mini game with no bearing on any “core” stuff, CANNOT is definitely the 
right route IMO. 

Gaelan

> On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:39 PM, Aris Merchant 
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I disagree with this in principle. This isn’t a loophole, it’s a matter of
> trust. We should be able to trust our officers not to deliberately flout
> the rules. We have social conventions for a reason.
> 
> -Aris
> 
>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:37 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I submit this proposal:
>> 
>> Title: Favour Loophole Closure
>> Author: D Margaux
>> AI: 1
>> 
>> Amend Rule 2542 to replace:
>> 
>> “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed
>> Parties, but SHALL NOT do so except as required by rule.”
>> 
>> With:
>> 
>> “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed
>> Parties only to the extent required by rule.”

Reply via email to