To me, OUGHT is closer to SHOULD than SHALL, and it bears a tinge of reproach (you ought not to have done that). In particular, if you look at the single place it's used, in R2231, that's clearly (to me anyway) a SHOULD not a SHALL: "As this title is the highest honour that Agora may bestow, a Bearer of this title OUGHT to be treated right good forever." I don't want to turn behavior towards a Hero into a SHALL.
More generally, R2231 aside, I just don't see a strong use case for codifying a capitalization for this (it doesn't fill in a missing grammatical construction or anything). On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:22 AM Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think they cover mostly the same semantic area. There might be some > difference around the edges, but the two expressions both seem to fit the > provided definition. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:20 AM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > That seems like a reasonable distinction to me, at least. > > > > Jason Cobb > > > > On 6/12/19 2:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > To my ear, "ought" means something slightly different from "should." I > > would have thought that "ought" means that something is required from a > > moral perspectivd, while should doesn't. But maybe I'm wrong and they're > > synonymous..? > > > > > >> On Jun 12, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not > > really OUGHT, though. > > >> > > >> Jason Cobb > > >> > > >>> On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > >>> I vote and cause L to vote as follows: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor > > >>> FOR > > >>> > > >>> 8181 D Margaux, [1] 1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) > > >>> FOR > > >>> > > >>> 8182 Jason Cobb 3.0 Add value to zombies > > >>> FOR > > >>> > > >>> 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform > > >>> FOR > > >>> > > >>> 8184 G. 3.0 power-limit precedence > > >>> FOR > > >>> > > >>> 8185 Trigon 3.0 OUGHT we? > > >>> AGAINST > > >>> > > >>> 8186 Jason Cobb 3.0 Minor currency fixes > > >>> FOR > > >>> > > >>> 8187 Jason Cobb 3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh? > > >>> FOR > >
