Aris wrote:
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).
Eh, the NoH (intentional acronym there?) worked on a re-attempt, not
worth the paperwork really.
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.
That makes sense as far as it goes, but even without knowing that, I
would've expected that hypothetical new player to think "well, the rest
of the form factor is obvious enough that intent is also obvious, e must
have just misremembered which word starting with K and meaning 'nebulous
props' the rules used". Same deal with a public message replying to a
proposal title with "FOR" being ruled unclear without an explicit "I
vote as follows" preamble; the existence of a contrary judgement is
itself evidence that it's somehow not as obvious as I expected.
