Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3992 assigned to Secretsnail9

[secretsnail9 via agora-discussion]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 12, 2022, at 10:14 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion 
> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
> On 9/12/22 22:31, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> On Sep 12, 2022, at 9:12 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion 
>>> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>> On 9/12/22 20:31, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
>>>> There's also the clause in Rule 2630 "The Administrative State": "An
>>>> officer SHALL NOT violate eir office's administrative regulations in the
>>>> discharge of eir office." It's not too relevant to this case, but there may
>>>> be an issue when violating a regulation, as violations are a regulated
>>>> action that can be performed only using the methods explicitly specified in
>>>> the Rules (not regulations) for performing the given action. Rule 2545
>>>> (Auctions) handles this nicely: "SHALL NOT violate requirements that
>>>> auction's method that are clearly intended to be punishable as rules
>>>> violations", the typo aside.
>>> 
>>> SHALL (NOT)s do not create regulated actions anymore.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Jason Cobb
>>> 
>>> Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>>> 
>> But breaking a SHALL (NOT) is a regulated action, a violation, yes? After 
>> all, if it wasn't, we would be proscribing an unregulated action. I'm 
>> confused what you mean.
>> 
>> --
>> secretsnail
> 
> 
> No. It's perfectly fine to proscribe unregulated actions. For instance,
> lying to the public forum is both unregulated and proscribed, and
> pledges can proscribe non-game actions.
> 
> -- 
> Jason Cobb
> 
> Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
> 

But

The Rules SHALL NOT be
      interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.

I don't get it.
--
secretsnail