On 5/15/2020 7:58 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 7:48 PM Edward Murphy wrote: >> G. wrote: >>> 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... >>> >> >> 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.
Really, the past is a bit of a red herring and shouldn't come into it (unless it was the immediate past and in most players' memory). The "Notice of Honour" label and form factor, the +1 and -1 and reasons for the chosen people, and a k-word of similar sound/length to the correct word that has no meaning in the current ruleset. And Notices don't have any heightened clarity requirements beyond "specify". I mean, if AGAINT is a vote, then that Notice should have worked. -G.
