On Saturday 02 February 2008 11:12:00 Zefram wrote: > Charles Reiss wrote: > >Because watcher is quoted (2) is an especially plausible interpretation in > >this case. The use of 'a' obviously makes it less plausible but can be > >excused as an inconsequential typo. > > The quotes can also be excused as an inconsequential grammatical > mistake, or as indicating unfamiliarity with the terminology, supporting > interpretation (1).
I will note this (though I believe the quoting still weighs more in favor of interpretation (2) than (1)). > >Because interpretation (2) and (3) are plausible (even if less likely > > intended than interpretation (1)), we must interpret the message as > > causing Pavitra to become a player per R754, which requires the rules' > > definitions to prevail by default. > > This doesn't follow. It's most sensible to choose the most plausible > interpretation. Rule 754's "default" clause does not mean that rule > definitions are to be used implausibly. I strongly disagree. R754's preference for rule-defined definitions would be of little effect is we always choose the most plausible interpretation instead of choosing the rule-defined one whenever it might reasonably apply. This means doing so even when the rule-defined definition-based interpretation is not the most plausible. And I do believe that the rule-defined interpretation is not "implausible" in this case. > You also have the option to determine that the message is void due > to ambiguity. Is there precedent on doing this when deciding between a rule-recognized action and a non-rule-recognized one? I'm rather hesitant to allow non-rule-recognized meanings to make otherwise valid rule-recognized actions ineffective. And given that the rules "don't see" the non-rule-recognized action, is there a reason both can't happen? -woggle
