On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 17:30 -0500, D. Margaux wrote: > Proto judgement: > > FALSE, by application of the ISIDTID ruling of CFJ 1774 (Judge G. > presiding) The quang precedent does not compel a TRUE judgement. > Quang is a shorthand for a particular action, and that shorthand > arguably has entered the Agora lexicon. “I state what is necessary to > perform action X” has not.
My thoughts on this: I haven't been following the recent economic rules much, but I know that the word "quang", as defined, has an implication of stating a value of 5 coins. As such, if the number of coins needs to be stated, and the actual value is 5, "quang" would correctly inform me as to how many coins are involved, but a statement like "the correct number of coins" would not. This in turn means that quanging will cease to be effective if the rules are ever changed to give a different award. -- ais523
