On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:36 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On 6/19/2020 10:35 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > These judgments are basically drafts. I'm assigning them because I've > > got to assign something, but I'm happy to reconsider as appropriate. I > > think the core of the arguments should be good though. > > I think your judgements as-is are plenty for your current cases. I'm > curious though, you implied your line of thinking would cover things like > the Shinies case, but I don't see the connection too much, you talk about > grammatical sensibilities (and how using a defined term of art like > "exploded" would imply the undefined opposite of "unexploded") but that > doesn't impact so much how nouns and terms of art are defined and > redefined (e.g. jargon?) > > Not saying you need to add that, just curious where it was going... That's not the portion that covers jargon. It's the underlying reasoning behind that, which Rebecca pointed out. Basically my contention is that a lot of our legal standards for understanding text can and should be boiled down to "do the players understand what's going on here?". Your precedent on jargon for instance, CFJ 3663, is entirely compatible with this approach. I just personally found it a little light on the "why" aspect. There are some other CFJs that I think are consistent with it, like our precedents on non-English languages, and there are some precedents I think are inconsistent with it. So the goal of the thesis would be to outline why this is the right model, explain it in more detail, and show which precedents are and aren't consistent with it. -Aris
