On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote: > >>> > >>> "I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's > >>> some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when > >>> assets were more strictly controlled and the rules came out and said you > >>> had to be very specific. That's not in the Rules anymore. > >> > >> Actually, the relevant text at the time of CFJ 1307 said you had to > >> "specify" the assets to transfer. Rule 478 currently requires that > >> you "unambiguously and clearly specify" the action, which (CFJ 2238) > >> applies to the parameters of an action. Current game custom directly > >> contradicts those precedents. > > > > I consider 'unambiguously and clearly' to be allowed to include shorthands; > > for instance, it is so widely accepted now that FOR in response to a > > proposal is a vote FOR, because it still conveys enough information. By > > contrast, due to historical precedent, AGAINT is viewed as ambiguous. > > Sure. But that directly contradicts the precedent I just mentioned.
Indeed, now that I look at 1307, there is considerable precedent drift in what "specificy." In fact, it looks paradoxically like the rules language has gotten tougher while our interpretation of that language has gotten much weaker (or if you like, more generous). The only direct Rule change that I can point to that might allow the weaker interpretation is that the implementation of conditional votes led to a cultural willingness to permit conditionals in other areas. Speaking of which, returning to the matter directly at hand on the specific proposal, I didn't think about what considering "all decisions" as a conditional "if a proposal is in its voting period, I vote for it" might imply. -G.
