On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:34 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: > You seem to be missing the point here. This is not a matter of what is > true and what is false. In this case, because of the way the rule is > worded, there are two possible ways to interpret the rule. Both are > equally viable ways to interpret this rule. Agora benefits from having > a consensus on how the rule is interpreted. Without such a consensus > why bother playing a game together? we could all just interpret the > rules however we liked, and all have our own little 'perfect' version > of Agora without other people to mess it up, right? > > In such a case it falls to the judge's opinion to determine which of > the equally viable ways to interpret the rule should govern. That is > what I have done in this case.
Last time the issue came up, there was a huge argument (because it was connected with a scam, IIRC); instead of a simple "the rule is ambiguous", there was a large discussion with something like 5 or 6 possibilities discussed, and an analysis of which ones were and weren't consistent with the rules as a whole. I think it's rare to get a true ambiguity in the rules that requires R217 to resolve. -- ais523
