On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > Even more importantly, Rule 2126/52 said "VVLOP" until 21 June 2008; > that definitely isn't ancient history. I amended it to "VVLOD" in rule > 2125/53 myself. "*that happened before you registered in the game and > you never saw*"? I fixed it myself! Of course I saw it! > > I shouldn't have taken Goethe on trust that it's a very old change, > either... Goethe, I sort-of would have expected comex to lie about old > rules, but you?
I was mixing a response to two separate posts by comex, sorry that they were muddled, but they weren't lies. Some points/clarifications: 1. The Feb '08 change predates you and ehird, personally as players, if I read the registration history correctly [hard to to with ehird and it feels like e's been here for an eternity]. How could you personally be confused? The test for "confusion of communication" IMO and in precedent is whether a range of reasonable Agorans should reasonably be confused... were you actually confused based on something that was never a part of "your" ruleset? Or just taking comex's word for it that you should be confused? 2. In any case, I was comparing comex's Feb 08 dates with your arrival. I should note that, if some cleanup/fix proposal to remove old language was something you personally had a hand in, shouldn't you personally be well aware of the situation and not confused of what exists? [There's a precedent as well that being "unaware" is not necessarily what you are honestly aware of, but what a reasonable player in your position with your history should be aware of...] 3. Again, is there evidence that someone, specifically looking at the earlier email, thought the communication was unclear in what it referred to? Other than someone like comex who looked and said "e technically said it wrong, I can attack that" (such a sentiment is just evidence that it is clear enough for a scammer to decide to twist it). 4. In a later email, comex used, as eir argument, a version of the Rule by Swann (I think?) that had been out of the ruleset for years. I really, really find it hypocritical that -- if I've been following arguments correctly -- folks who have argued "if it's out of the ruleset, we don't pay attention to it" would say that quoting a rule of that lineage would have any bearing on today. Anyway, this is the ancient rule I was talking about. -Goethe
