On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 7:48 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> G. wrote: > > > On 5/15/2020 10:13 AM, James Cook wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 19:40, Aris Merchant wrote: > >>> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:18 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to set its chamber > >>>> switch to that chamber. > >>> > >>> > >>> I CFJ "In a generic Agoran context, to refer a proposal to a chamber > >>> is to set its chamber switch to that chamber." > >>> > >>> Arguments: > >>> > >>> I've been putting "Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to > >>> set its chamber switch to that chamber." at the top of my referral > >>> messages since February. My hope is that people have seen it enough by > >>> now that the average Agoran knows what it means without needing to see > >>> the definition. > >>> > >>> -Aris > >> > >> I think it would be good to keep repeating the definition. Otherwise, > >> even if current players now understand it, as new players join I don't > >> see how they're supposed to figure it out except by guessing. With > >> some Agoran jargon, guessing might be enough, but for a word that only > >> appears once a week and only in one context, I don't think that gives > >> enough information for people to be really confident in their guess > >> about what it means. > >> > >> - Falsifian > >> > > > > Well e's not using a random strange word like Quang, either. To "refer" > a > > proposal to chamber" seems similar enough to me (in common usage terms of > > refer) to "set the chamber of a proposal" in R2607 (and there's not > really > > any other possible rules-interpretations), such that anyone who takes the > > time to learn what a "chamber" is would likely figure it out... > > > > -G. > > You'd think so, but then one of my messages was shot down for mentioning > "kudos" instead of "karma", notwithstanding it being labeled as a Notice > of Honour and otherwise following the typical form factor of one. Surely > "refer" has had some formal rule definition at some point in the past? I said at the time that I thought that worked, I just called the CFJ to double check. If you want to call a moot I'd support (I don't know how I'd vote on the actual moot yet, but I'd support calling one). Anyhow, the factor there wasn't that it had a meaning in the past. Rather the opposite actually; the judge ruled that people couldn't be expected to know that kudos had been comparable to karma. So if anything, that CFJ stands as precedent *against* the significance of usage in prior rulesets. -Aris
