Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comex<com...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taral<tar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hicks<pidge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2
>>>> seems fairly unambiguous to me as a request to set power to 2.
>>> I support. More common sense please.
>> Rule 217 only goes so far when "common sense" directly contradicts the
>> text of the Rules.
>
> In order for their to be ambiguity an informed Agoran player would
> have to reasonably believe that AI-2 meant something other than
> power=2 in that situation. I just don't see it - it was pretty clear
> to everyone what G. intended.
>
> BobTHJ
Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes
that change to be void and without effect. A variation in
whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing
rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this
rule, but any other variation does.
AI is a term defined and used in many places in the rules. There is no
qway to say that setting a rule's AI is unambiguously setting a rule's
power. My interpretation would be that it simply sets its AI. The
alternative interpretation, which is that of a genuined ambiguity, means
the Rule Changes were completely ineffective (as the /entire/ rule
change is without effect), which would be a huge problem.
