On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote: >>> 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. >> >> And was the SLR published within every voting period? Otherwise by your >> rules you can't refer to it. -Goethe >> > Rule 754 is more powerful than rule 2127, and they contradict each > other. Rule 754 wins.
Where's the conflict? R754 allows abbreviations, dialect etc. and outside references (dictionaries, etc.) R2127 allows that "information" be published, which may include R754 abbreviations, dialect, etc. The standard is lack of ambiguity. If you were arguing that a vote was unclear because it was unclear or ambiguous in the way it used an abbreviation, all well and good. But I'm not going to support the idea that an abbreviation is automatically forbidden because an aspect of its definition was published outside the voting period. -Goethe
