Roger Hicks wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 21:41, comex<com...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Roger Hicks<pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> IBA � � � � � � � � 3 � 2 � 0 � 0 � 1 � 1 � 9 � 1 � 1 � 8 � 9 � 1 >> >> CoE: The IBA has no WRV. �coppro did not specify which bank e intended >> to deposit eir WRV into. >> > Proto-Denied. It seemed reasonably clear to me since the IBA is the > only active bank. Other opinions?
Proto-precedent: ambiguity should be judged on the ability of the poster to later plausibly choose an interpretation. That is, if someone says "I deposit 1 WRV in the bank", and can then later choose the bank that later turns out to have been the more economically advantageous bank to have deposited in, then this should be treated as ineffective due to ambiguity; but if only one interpretation can be made plausible in retrospect, then the announcement should be treated as unambiguous and effective. Not saying that's what's going on here, but I'd like to set the policy before it gets abused.
