[Nomic02] Proposal: Dereliction of Duty

[Carl Muckenhoupt]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote:

> Ok, I'm confused here. Having refreshed my memory of the discussion
> (which occurred before I joined the game), the objection was to having
> rules which could be broken (by inaction) without specifying what
> happened if someone did.

The discussion ended with an informal agreement between RC and myself to
refuse to pass any rules involving required actions, so that a rule giving
penalties for failing to perform such actions would be unnecessary.  
Since RC isn't really participating at this point, I'm sort of adopting
his position, which was as much an aesthetic desire for elegance as
anything else.  But I'm not going to carry it to the point of refusing
Dereliction of Duty [Psmith]; after all, I was the one who made the first
proposal along those lines.  Required actions are still to be avoided, and
eliminated when noticed, but it's good to have an emergency procedure for
dealing with them in case our vigilance fails us again.