On Friday 25 January 2008 2:06 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> I think a system where unofficial custom can override something
> explicitly defined in the Rules is almost completely unworkable, not
> to mention a huge burden to new players. Who defines what exactly is
> "custom"? If I start posting messages claiming a copy-and-pasted line
> from a ballot followed by the word "AGAINST" is a synonym for "I
> deregister", should attempts to vote against a proposal be taken as
> deregistrations? What if I post these messages frequently for a
> period of a few months? What if several more players join me in doing
> so? What's the threshold for people repeatedly using a term in one
> way before it's "custom" and therefore able to override a rule?
Given R754(4), the issue here seems not so much one of custom versus rule,
but whether an adverbial phrase ("as a 'watcher'") changes the meaning of
the whole ("I register"). If not, terms such as "poorly qualified" may be
in trouble.
On the other hand, "I register as foo" does have an established meaning,
which happens to be an instance of registration anyway. So we're pretty much
back where we started.
In terms of custom, consider the usage of "TTttPF". I think the 'threshhold',
as you say, should be the threshhold of ambiguity (cf R754(1)). Luckily, my
post seems to have fallen rather close to that threshhold.
Hail Eris.
..
Pavitra
