Sean Hunt wrote:
> I CFJ {The proposal entitled It's the Thought That Counts, if adopted,
> would successfully cause the first Rule Change described in its text.}
> I CFJ {The proposal entitled It's the Thought That Counts, if adopted,
> would successfully cause the second Rule Change described in its text.}
[...]
> Notably, definition 3 features "append", and makes no mention of
> insertion at an arbitrary location. Therefore it seems obvious that
> "add" should be taken to mean "append".Gratuitous: If the proposal read "insert" or "amend the list to include" rather than "append", then the change would almost certainly be ambiguous. The judge is requested to provide a general rubric for determining whether a given near-synonym for "append"/"insert" is ambiguous or unambiguous, and if possible to do so for potentially-ambiguous terminology in general. [Not part of gratuitous arguments: this may warrant increasing the case's II considerably if the judge intends to comply.]
