Ah, alright. I wasn't familiar with that. I've been here for so long and I still don't know that stuff lmao.
But yeah, even if it is tradition, I'm not against just going contrary to it since all we need to do that is enough people agreeing to do so, and I'd agree to it (although, probably not right now while my Agora being is still being rented out lmao). On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 1:37 PM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 06:45 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never > > judge DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation > > instead. > > > > Why is this? (Is it just culture? A CfJ-rule? A rule?) > > > > Well, Rule 217 "Interpreting the Rules" says that "Where the text [of the > rules] is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game > custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best > interests of the game." > > I think that game custom, common sense, past judgements and consideration > of the best interests *all* demand that, if the rules are ambiguous, we > pick one interpretation and go with that one. Judging a case DISMISS > because the rules are ambiguous, and considering the gamestate to be > fundamentally ambiguous as a result, would be unprecedented (I think) and > extremely unconventional. > > —Warrigal > > > >
