Tiger wrote: > 2009/6/10 Benjamin Caplan <celestialcognit...@gmail.com>: >> Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >>>> I act on behalf of coppro to support this. I act on behalf of Pavitra >>>> to support this. I act on behalf of zeckalpha to support this. Having >>>> received sufficient support, I make this proposal distributable. >>> You should come up with an acronym for this. -G. >> "I act on behalf of the parties to Distributability Sucks to support this." >> >> Still not short enough. >> >> Would "I DiSu-zoop this" be clear enough? >> > What would happen if the contract read "The verb 'DiSu-zoop' means > acting on behalf of all the other parties to supprt one's intent to > make a proposal distributable and then do so" - would it be accepted > as unambiguous then?
CFJ 2263 set precedent that, if a player announces eir standing intent to define an otherwise-undefined term a certain way, then other players using the same term are assumed to be using the same definition in the absence of any other definition of it. This probably works even if the original intent is sent to a-d, especially if the other players have demonstrated that they read it (e.g. by replying to it).
