On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
>> 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...]
> Ah, OK. I personally am well aware of the situation, but don't see
> whether my person knowledge of the rules matters in this case; clear is
> not "clear to ais523", but "clear". Imagine a person, say Zefram or
> Iammars, who had been active around the time of the old text, but not
> paying too much attention since. Would it be clear to them? Should it
> matter?
Your longer discussion on unclarity is quite reasonable, and I thank you
for it... my main comment is that precedents (several that I think I
remember I'll go catalog them later perhaps) tend to look for "actual and
practical" unclarity ("was someone out there confused? and should they
have been?") rather than wholly theoretical unclarity ("someone like Zefram
might potentially have been confused.") It's also reasonable to assume
some gradient though. There are a few examples in the past where the judge
actually polled players: "did anyone who doesn't have self-interest find
this unclear?" and used that for a decision.
For my own data point, I'm just thinking about the number of times we've
made decisions/proposals democratic since Feb (several), and I've never
been confused at what we were doing (making democratic votes count not
ordinary ones) and I'd be hard-pressed to say that the right "language"
was used every time. Looking back at the February ruleset right
now, I'd say that the *effect* was unambiguous, in that (in the old rules)
making a Proposal democratic disqualified Ordinary votes, and in the new
rules making a Decision democratic disqualifies Ordinary votes [secondary
effects like "Stalled" that comex mentioned were older than February,
perhaps much older]. So, there's no ambiguity at all in what was being
supported--the disqualification of ordinary votes from the reckoning.
-Goethe
