On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 09:42 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > Wooble wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification > >> is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the > >> *current* > >> rule as excluding readily-available information (as long as it's > >> *referenced* > >> at least indirectly by the publication in question). -Goethe > > > > "published during the voting period" seems pretty unambiguous to me, > > as stupid a criterion as it is. If Rule 478 didn't define what it > > means to publish something I could be persuaded that readily-available > > and referenced counts as "published". > > It's only "stupid" when taking contract-defined shorthand into account, > which is a non-trivial stretch from the original idea of conditional > votes with an explicitly-stated condition. Even then, one could > reasonably argue that knowledge of the contract-defined shorthand is > implicitly allowed, in the same way that knowledge of standard English > is implicitly allowed.
Rule 754 explicitly allows knowledge of standard English, and of the rules. It doesn't allow knowledge of contract-defined terms. By the same "an explicit MAY implies MAY NOT in all other cases" that we have in the rules (via the definition of regulation), I can only conclude that there is no implicit allowance in voting conditions. -- ais523
