On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal CFJ 2203. The judgement looked >> reasonable at the time, but various doubts have come up since which I >> think need looking at. Rule 754 is probably the best argument as to what >> is allowed, because it sets it out explicitly: (1) typos, dialects, and >> abbreviations that do not cause ambiguity; (2) Rule-defined terms; (3) >> mathematical and legal terms; (4) standard English. Note, specifically, >> that this does not include contracts. > > To be more precise, (4) allows "ordinary-language meaning". Arguably, > general acceptance of a contract-defined term makes it ordinary > language. That's probably not the case here, though, since "SELL (5VP > - AGAINST) x 3" doesn't seem to be as generally accepted as we > thought.
Furthermore, Agoran terms are certainly dialects and abbreviations, these dialects can be defined outside the voting period by usage, the key phrase is "do not cause ambiguity". 1. Whether or not the contract was published during the voting period has nothing whatsoever to do with ambiguity. 2. Whether the phrasology is clear or not in referencing the contract in the right way, or the reference terminology is reasonably common and currently in standard local use, or the reference is reasonably direct (e.g. the contract wasn't last published in 2002 in a forgotten email) has *everything* to do with ambiguity. -Goethe
