On 9/12/22 23:18, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > 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, Stonemason >>>> >>> 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, Stonemason >> > But > > The Rules SHALL NOT be > interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions. > > I don't get it. > -- > secretsnail
Ugh I just completely forgot about that clause. Nevertheless, it doesn't make all proscribed actions regulated. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
