The officeholder switch for the office of Herald has been set to vacant for
approximately 5 weeks. By rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) and 2510
(Such is Karma), vacant SHALL publish the Herald's weekly report each week.
This has not happened for the past 5 weeks. At the same time there have been
several players who were able to publish the report during those weeks under
rule 2160 (Deputization). But they have all collectively failed to do so. No
one has suggested that any or all players who were able to deputize to perform
the action should be fined or otherwise penalized for failing to do so.
The text is silent on what should happen if The Ritual is not performed. I
think that the above paragraph describes a substantially similar situation in
which game custom has been to not fine players so per rule 217 I think that
imposing a fine in this situation would be incorrect.
On Monday, June 3, 2019, 9:36:19 PM CDT, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
<ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
> I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an Officer
> report. An Officer report SHALL be published weekly", a robot may interpret
> such a provision as imposing criminal liability on the report itself, but
> any English-speaking person would realise that the ADoP is liable for such
> a breach. Just because any player can activate this provision, no
> difference applies. After all, it is still "exact", as non-player persons
> could not be held liable for breaching this rule as they can for some rules.
I think the report would clearly be at fault if it happened to be a
person. (We've had previous rulesets in which agreements could be
persons; it doesn't take much of a stretch from there to imagine a
ruleset in which a document could be a person.)
--
ais523
