On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 2:09 PM grok via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I think what I'm actually suggesting is that there's enough precedent that
> a sympathetic judge may stay eir judgment or issue a clarifying judgment in
> favor of common practice to give players enough time to patch up the rule.
The text of the rules has to take precedence, according to Rule 217.
If there's ambiguity it can be resolved in favor of game custom and
the game's best interests, but this appears to me to unambiguously
cause a failure.
Rule 217/12 (Power=3)
Interpreting the Rules
When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
takes precedence. Where the text 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.
Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about
rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it
is true. Definitions in lower-powered Rules do not overrule
common-sense interpretations or common definitions of terms in
higher-powered rules, but may constructively make reasonable
clarifications to those definitions. For this purpose, a
clarification is reasonable if and only if it adds detail without
changing the underlying general meaning of the term and without
causing the higher powered rule to be read in a way inconsistent
with its text.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that would
(1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve
matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the
controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a person from
causing formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that
e should be punished, is wholly void and without effect.
-Aris
