On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Just a followup ais523, would you agree with the following statement? > > For the purposes of R2127, if information published in the same message > as a conditional vote and/or directly associated with a conditional vote > contains a clear abbreviation that is generally understood by most players > or a clear and direct reference to secondary material that is generally > easily available to players during the voting period, that secondary > material may be used to clearly resolve the conditional vote, regardless > of whether the secondary material was published during the voting period, > as the "information published within the voting period" clearly refers to > the secondary material and makes it available, thereby making it a > substantive part of the published information.
I wouldn't agree with it unconditionally, although it's right most of the time. I think it would depend on how generally understood, or how clear and direct. For instance, "I vote OCTAHEDRON, where OCTAHEDRON is defined at http://example.com/foo"; would be a pretty clear and direct reference to generally easily available material, and I think most players would allow that. However, if the content of the website in question varied during the voting period, it would get a lot more murky. (I am reminded of the flash animation which changed its mind about OPPOSE/SUPPORT); this sort of reasoning makes it hard to figure out where the line was drawn. Does anyone know why rule 2127 was created in the first place? I'm wondering if the bar was intentionally set high to discourage that sort of scam. -- ais523
