I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the mechanism is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways".
I'll attempt to prove this based on the flaws of our perception (although I could keep bringing up more and more and I'd only need *one* to qualify): We can only perceive the game through our subjective perception, as Janet's announcement easily outlines. There might be things that we don't know about. Since we don't ever know (and can't ever know) if we're entirely right about if the gamepieces, including the ruleset, are what we think they are; because we're not omniscient or something, there's always some doubt that the game could mean something else. Therefore enabling that the game is "capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways" because of that permanent uncertainty that we can't get rid of. The entire game *might* be some other way, but we just don't know for sure if it is or not, making the entire game ambiguous to us to some degree. On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:28 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/10/23 14:26, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > "Any at all full stop" ambiguity is a whole lot of ambiguity, is my > point. > > It's incredibly easy for anything to gain any iota of ambiguity. But, > yes, > > I believe that we don't interpret it that way, rather, the ambiguity > needs > > to be "reasonable", but then the discussion becomes what*is* reasonable > > ambiguity? It's subjective and it depends on what the group deciding it > > (Agora itself) feels like it should be. > I'm still going to (politely) push back on this. It seems like your base > assumption is everything is ambiguous, and we would need to prove it's > not. I'm saying the opposite. if nobody provides an alternative reading, > there's no reason to believe the rule change is ambiguous. I am applying > the standard strictly, and expecting a burden of proof that it has been > violated instead of just assuming it has been. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
