coppro wrote: > Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 14:08, comex<com...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Taral<tar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Roger Hicks<pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> I intend (with 2 support) to appeal. A request to set a rule AI to 2 >>>>> seems fairly unambiguous to me as a request to set power to 2. >>>> I support. More common sense please. >>> Rule 217 only goes so far when "common sense" directly contradicts the >>> text of the Rules. >> In order for their to be ambiguity an informed Agoran player would >> have to reasonably believe that AI-2 meant something other than >> power=2 in that situation. I just don't see it - it was pretty clear >> to everyone what G. intended. >> >> BobTHJ > Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes > that change to be void and without effect. A variation in > whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing > rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this > rule, but any other variation does. > > AI is a term defined and used in many places in the rules. There is no > qway to say that setting a rule's AI is unambiguously setting a rule's > power. My interpretation would be that it simply sets its AI. The > alternative interpretation, which is that of a genuined ambiguity, means > the Rule Changes were completely ineffective (as the /entire/ rule > change is without effect), which would be a huge problem.
The rules don't state that only certain entities have an AI (contrast recent CFJs about switches), they just don't define any knock-on effects based on the AI of an entity other than a decision.
