On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:19, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wooble wrote: > >> I CFJ on the following statements, barring ais523: > > I CFJ on the following statement, barring root: > > "A vote that relies on terminology defined in a public contract > satisfies R683(c)'s requirement to clearly identify the option > selected by the voter, even if the voter misunderstood the meaning > of the terminology in question, or it is ambiguous, unclear, or disputed > what the terminology in question means in a particular context."
UNDETERMINED (we can probably construct a terminology that is clear in some context in which it could be used but not in some other context and a misunderstanding that is sufficiently bizarre as to not be a problem). Can we please try for more specific CFJs that might actually resolve the dispute at hand? -woggle
