Embarrassing. I will shortly post an actual proposal version of this.

I think I made it in the edit window actually, after checking

If my doctor says I should eat less meat that doesn’t mean I’m required to eat less meat

reason is a fickle thing; and it is something that when the other side have incomplete information may guess the hidden agenda of.

There’s a reason why I linked you to the prior discussion on this; none of the obvious solutions work.

causes some awkward readings, like “Trucks who wish to become Admins are required to submit a Proposal or CfJ to that effect (unless a reason to the contrary can be provided)”

Interestingly, there’s also some uses of “should” that don’t quite work with either interpretation:

A Pending CfJ may be Failed by any Admin if any of the following are true:
- It is Unpopular.
- It ... does not specify that any attempt to perform an action should be upheld or rejected, ...

If a rule implies that the result of any calculation should be an integer ...

If a Truck should already know such a piece of information (in that the Yard has already told them it, or vice versa, and there is no way that the information could have been changed since then) ...

Is the change from “is recommended that” to “is required to, unless a reason to the contrary can be provided” intended to change how we use the term “should”, or to bring it more in line with how we’re using it?

I’m not sure whether you’re intending “reason to the contrary” to include “as Emperor, I don’t think it would be fair to all players for me to do this” or “as a player, I would lose points if I did this”.

It feels like redefinitions of the imperatives will also necessitate a scouring of the ruleset where they are currently used.

I don’t mind this flopping, it got the ball rolling which was the point