On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 10:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> 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. >> Yes, I think I agree with you here. I've come to the same conclusion as >> you. I think our reasoning may be different, though. (I'm thinking that >> clear abbreviations must be allowed, because the rules and custom >> support that, and unclear abbreviations must not be allowed, because the >> rules and custom don't allow those.)
Just a followup ais523, would you agree with the following statement? For the purposes of R2127, if information published in the same message as a conditional vote and/or directly associated with a conditional vote contains a clear abbreviation that is generally understood by most players or a clear and direct reference to secondary material that is generally easily available to players during the voting period, that secondary material may be used to clearly resolve the conditional vote, regardless of whether the secondary material was published during the voting period, as the "information published within the voting period" clearly refers to the secondary material and makes it available, thereby making it a substantive part of the published information. -Goethe
