ais523 wrote: > 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.
For reference, "last time" = CFJ 2276a
