On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote: >>> >>> "I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's >>> some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when >>> assets were more strictly controlled and the rules came out and said you >>> had to be very specific. That's not in the Rules anymore. >> >> Actually, the relevant text at the time of CFJ 1307 said you had to >> "specify" the assets to transfer. Rule 478 currently requires that >> you "unambiguously and clearly specify" the action, which (CFJ 2238) >> applies to the parameters of an action. Current game custom directly >> contradicts those precedents. > > I consider 'unambiguously and clearly' to be allowed to include shorthands; > for instance, it is so widely accepted now that FOR in response to a > proposal is a vote FOR, because it still conveys enough information. By > contrast, due to historical precedent, AGAINT is viewed as ambiguous.
Sure. But that directly contradicts the precedent I just mentioned.
